One of the attributes of higher life forms – even Lefties - is their aptitude for comprehensive thinking: that ability to discern patterns and connections not immediately apparent and thus recognize the greater reality of a given circumstance. When it comes to utter fantasy – the Global Warming Crisis or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for instance - Lefties are quite adept at finding patterns and connections, particularly where none exist. When it comes to matters of national security, however, they opt to disconnect this function of their brains.
The latest instance of this selective brain engagement occurred March 27, 2007, when Democratic staffers on the House Armed Services Committee issued a memo entitled "Style Guide for Defense Authorization Report." With this memo they instructed aides as follows:
In reaction to the memo, an irate and flabbergasted House Minority Leader, John Boehner, asked "How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?" As we all know, the answer is: they don’t. After all, Michael Moore has so graciously assured us, "There is no terrorist threat."
Lefties claim the restrictions on speech prescribed in this memo are not intended to be political; they merely seek to be more precise about military operations. Thus, they argue, phrases such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world" are more effective then sweeping terms such as "Global War on Terror" or "The Long War." In certain instances, this is unquestionably true. However, in terms of ensuring that the citizens of Western Civilization fully appreciate the vast scope of the threat we face, such semantic dissection is nothing short of suicidal; naïve at best, deepest cynicism at worst, but in either case suicidal.
In truth, criticism of the branding of our current struggle as a "War on Terror" is nothing new. Not a few commentators on the Right have been critical of the term, though for far less idiotic and defeat-ensuring reasons. Most argue that, in fact, the term does not go far enough in scope nor specificity. Many alternatives have been bandied about: War on Islamo-Fascism, War on Extremist Ideologies, but these don’t present well on t-shirts and bumper stickers. More importantly, they too fail to identify the full scope of the peril we are in, for it is becoming increasingly evident that we face as much threat from forces that are internal and insidious as from those that are external and explosive.
Thus, I unveil here for the first time my definitive brand name for the war formerly known as The Global War on Terror: THE WAR ON COWARDICE. (copyright pending, order #354.98B - 4.6.07).