One of the stranger things about debating the Global War on Terror, is having to sell some folks on the idea that defending our nation from terrorists is a good and necessary thing. In fact, there seem to be a lot of people on the Left, who are very bad at convincing folks they are as patriotic as the regular guy, since they insist on making excuses for some very bad people. Oddly enough, there is a long historical trail for groups like Hezbollah and the various Jihadist factions, one which has made clear their character and motive. And yet mainstream political parties support, even embrace, such monsters.
Back in the early years of the Twentieth Century, an international group existed which changed Terrorism into something very like what we know today, yet for many years the schools did not teach children about it. Most people are aware that World War One as it is commonly known, was set in motion through a series of causes and events, but the spark was the assassination on June 28 1914 of the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand during a visit to Sarajevo. What is not commonly taught or remembered, is that Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian subsect of the Black Hand, for the specific intention of sparking a great war which would destabilize governments so that revolution could occur. The scary part is that this is exactly what happened. Russia fell, Germany was forever changed, France and England greatly weakened by the conflict. Even the United States radically changed its foreign policy and military doctrine because of what happened in Europe. In fact, the Black Hand also came to the United States and began a series of bombings and assassinations, including attacks on Federal Judges, a number of Senators and Supreme Court Justices, and notable business leaders. When a bomb in 1920 exploded on the very doorstep of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, he appointed a young graduate from the George Washington University Law School to head up a task force to deal with the crisis. Almost three hundred terrorists were arrested in the next three months by the group led by J. Edgar Hoover, who forever linked the anarchists with the Bolsheviks, who often carried letters or copies of speeches from the Soviet leader Lenin, who in his own turn may fairly be compared to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in both style and tactic. Like the anarchists of a century ago, today’s anarchists ardently believe that in order to have a chance to establish the sort of government they desire, they must first destabilize and bring down the existing order.
So then, why would Democrats support such monsters? It is clear that the anarchists in the United States, in so far as they vote or support a party, have chosen to support the Democrats. This, to be fair, was not true during the days of Bill Clinton, when the anarchists saw him as the force of order to be opposed, but since the Republicans have gained control of the White House and the Congress, they are especially hated by the extreme Left, who are quite willing to accept the apparently strong support. Basically, it seems that the Left makes a number of questionable assumptions:
1. They believe that the extremists are not going to be able to succeed, and therefore conclude that there will be no consequences to accepting their help.
2. They believe that they are close enough to win, so that even extremists are worth accepting in order to gain votes.
3. Democrats mistake noise for significance, so that they are willing to offend the larger portion of their voter base in order to pander to relatively small groups, which create a far greater image than they can support at the polls. Consider the disappointing effect of the DU crowd, for instance.
4. Extreme Liberals have convinced the national party that only extreme positions will catch the attention of the voting public in a meaningful way.
It should be noted as well, that the Democrats ands American Liberals are hardly the only people to have fallen for the trap of accepting anarchists into their number. The overwhelming majority of international protests against American actions in the Middle East have had connections to or influence by anarchist groups, and more than a few governments have thought they could play with the anarchists without getting burned. Certainly this is a factor in Jihadism – some of these groups are waiting for a chance to establish their idea of a perfect nation, and to do that they are determined to undermine public confidence in the existing regimes. This is why they target the innocent, why they look for soft targets with high visibility. It is why, when Al Qaeda struck on 9/11, that their first and primary target was the World Trade Center rather than a legitimate military target – they wanted to hurt innocents in the belief that this atrocity would weaken the government. It is obvious that the only hope for Al Qaeda in Iraq is to provoke a civil war, so they attack mosques and bomb shopping centers. Ultimately however, there can be no resolution in order through the use of anarchist forces. Look at Lebanon. Prior to 1970 Lebanon was a peaceful, stable nation, but after the anarchists brought about civil war, order was lost, and even though Syria was successful in taking control, it turns out they could not hold it – the chaos of the anarchists led only to more disorder and violence. The anarchists win by a simple fact – they do not care about winning, except that the forces of Order are undone. And even the Jihadists are finding out that you cannot play games with Chaos on your terms.