The Second Front

Before the fighting started, one of the fears expressed by critics of the war to liberate Iraq was the prospect of terrorist attacks that al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations might launch against Americans at home and abroad. A war on Iraq would distract us from the war on terror.

The Democratic Party, which did not want to go to war against Iraq in 1991 or 2003, made this its principal point of criticism of administration policy. It was the pre-war theme of Democrats like Joe Biden, ranking member on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Daschle, Senate minority leader, Ted Kennedy and ex-President Bill Clinton.

Indeed, on the eve of the war, a call was issued in the name of the (probably dead) Osama bin Laden to launch such an assault on Americans as a "second front" to support the regime of Saddam Hussein.

But the war came and the terror did not. In the days leading up to the conflict, the American-led anti-terror coalition was even able to apprehend the No. 3 al-Qaeda leader and chief of its operations.

It is a remarkable fact, often overlooked by critics, that whatever may have happened to Osama bin Laden, there have been no successful terror attacks by al-Qaeda on Americans at home since 9/11. This is the strongest tribute possible to the aggressive strategy of the Bush administration, which has kept the terrorist enemy off balance and in disarray, and which is built on the perception that the war against terror and the war against regimes that harbor terrorists are one and the same.

But there is another front in the war against America that has not been so quiet. This is the war orchestrated by the anti-American left at home and abroad. While U.S. and British troops risk their lives to conduct a war of liberation remarkable in its effort to prevent civilian casualties on the other side, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators blocked traffic on American streets and tied up police, endangering civilian lives on our own.

In New York, Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities across the country, activists are breaking the law in a manner calculated to cause economic disruption and urban chaos. In accord with the plans of the organizers, thousands of police, who are an integral element of Homeland Security defense, have been tied up attempting to prevent the activists from escalating their war at home to a level of serious violence.

This violence is coming. Molotov cocktails were confiscated in San Francisco, where an activist also took his own life in a fall from the Golden Gate Bridge. Thousands of law-breaking activists have been arrested. Abroad, where police are not so solicitous of rioters, several activists were killed.

It would be unwise not to take the threat posed by this organized attack on American policy and American security seriously. The misnamed "anti-war" movement is led and organized by leftist vanguards who proclaim their solidarity with terrorist states, including North Korea and Cuba, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

One banner raised by activists in San Francisco read "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers." A photo of this banner is proudly portrayed on a leftist Web site that has played a key role in organizing the demonstrations (and is funded in part by a foundation headed by PBS commentator Bill Moyers). [http://www.sf.indymedia.org/uploads/ 1_shoot_officers.jpg]

It took the anti-Vietnam movement five years to reach the levels of these anti-American demonstrations and another two to initiate real violence. When that line was crossed, there were more than a thousand domestic bombings, and at least one terrorist cult was launched.

The current movement is potentially far more dangerous. Unlike its anti-Vietnam predecessor, it is allied with terrorist solidarity groups and radical Muslim organizations active on college campuses. This increases the likelihood that its violent tendencies will intensify as the war against terror abroad continues. The prospect that it will develop its own terrorist offshoots is real.

Unlike the anti-Vietnam efforts, the current movement is driven almost entirely by hate for American institutions, policies and purposes ("Washington Is the Axis Of Evil," "America Is the Greatest Terrorist State," "No Blood for Oil"). It is not inspired by any hope – however illusory – in a utopian future in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Socialism has been dead as a serious goal for the most of the left for decades. In its core, the left has always been a nihilistic and reactionary revolt against the modern world (capitalism, individualism, liberty), which is why it can ally itself so easily now with Islamo-fascists.

This means that the present leftist revival will not be deterred by an American victory in the current war. Its ranks are likely to grow and its tactics to become more radical as the general war on terror proceeds or should the war trigger problems in other Muslim countries. It will feed on the problems of the Iraqi peace, particularly if it is a troublesome peace, and it will continue its "anti-globalism" attacks on efforts to establish a prosperous and tranquil international order.

In its potential to disrupt American postwar policy and to limit the options of the American military lie the greatest dangers of this leftist revival, especially because of its deep resonances in the Democratic Party, half of whose constituents (and many of whose leaders) are opposed to the war.

The President has already warned that the effort to rebuilt Iraq, stabilize the region and carry on the war against terror "will require our sustained commitment." In order to sustain their security and foreign policy commitments, democracies require broad bipartisan support from their parties and from their publics.

It is this support that is threatened by the anti-American left, and it is this test that our nation must meet.

"They are very angry and focused. Usually, the leaders are not dopers."

Thanks for confirming the reality of the "anti-war" left.

Those in the streets might be the long-haired, dope-smoking maggot-infested "useful idiots". Or they might be the terminally naive. But those who manipulate them are anything but.

Why do you suppose they wanted to learn how to sink a boat?Why are these people interested in our food supply?

Over the Christmas break, I had to hep my son with his 6th grade history project on the Rights and Responsibilities of a Nazi. His big question was how did their society get to that point? that people could be abused on the street for their race and ideas.

Some of the thing I see going on out in the "tolerant" left coast and on college campi are pretty frightening. Its "okay' to blow up the SUV?, it's ok to plant spikes in a tree to harm a logger? Did you notice this line?
Among its other claims to fame, Earth First! actually published the newsletter articles (in the Earth First! Journal) from which "Unabomber" Ted Kaczinsky chose his last two victims. Look at the security DH needs because of DEATH THREATS because he dares to expose and denounce them.

One of the reasons I like Free Republic is that Freepers aren't passive or uninformed.

"...Unibomber,ELF,ALF,EWF,Greenpeace,Earth First and of course, PETA...All liberal..."

I would say not all "liberal" but all LEFTIST and/or Nazi types. It is too nice to call Leftists "liberal". There are "liberals" in this world, and I would define them politically as the so called "moderates" of either of our two major political parties here in the U.S. "Liberal" and/or "Moderate" means, "we who can't make a meaningful decision" - "we sit on the fence and can't move, but sometimes we vote with the left and sometimes we vote with the conservatives, but either way, only with much compromising, because it is only with much compromising that we can make our non-decisions."

Liberals/Moderates may actually be the worst kind of public office holder, because their vascilations usually lean them to the wrong side in their non-decision making process. They often present themselves to the electorate in an untruthful way because of their chameleon-like characteristics.

In our political scheme of things, "Democrat" or "Republican" often does not define between "Left" and "Right" - both parties have conservative members, and both parties have those that are on the left. Moderates may be associated with either party, but Moderates in the Republican party are more dangerous, because this is where the "RINO" generally comes from politically. For some reason it is politically expedient for them to wear a Republican tag, while they are more likely to oppose that which is generally conservative.

I know I have just expounded on an area in the political arena usually avoided by the "experts" so all you "experts" out there on this subject matter, flame away - I am wearing protective gear.

Before you dismiss the Left radicals as a bunch of zoned out loonies, keep in mind that they managed to get hundreds of thousand of their sympathizers out on the streets of our cities. These were not flower people blowing pot fumes and passing out daisies. They were committed radicals who inhabit the fever swamps of the far left.

The great monsters of the 20th century were once a small cadre, a handful of committed devils who had visions of power. And they took power largely through street demonstrations. That is really how the Third Reich was founded. Ditto for the Soviet Union.

And, as reformedliberal testifies, they have access to financial resources. One doesn’t stage a rally for 200,000 people with free e-mails and word-of-mouth. There are substantial foundations, individuals and even governments providing financing to this movement.

These current street fighters are the ones who will be providing the safe houses and documents and transportation and cache support.

We have seen this too many times in the 20th century to dismiss them.

I hope our FLEAs are taking lots of pictures and building the matrices now, for use later.

I don't think smashing up some store fronts and tipping over a few cars is a major threat.

A major threat? Maybe not, but it is major-league vandalism. These idiots must be punished to the full extent the law allows.

They have no right to smash those storefronts anymore than they would to smash your home.

Anyone who dismisses these street thugs does not know history.

The current German foreign minister is a crypto Stalinist who was a support cell member for the BM Gang and the RAF. Members of Fatah stayed in his apartment before and after they attacked the Vienna OPEC meeting, killing many.

Our current crop of street thugs are the same as him.

Yes- there is a danger they could grow more radical as we saw in the 60's when radical Left Wing but for the most part peaceful organizations were taken over by hard core violent revolutionaries. But don't expect the FBI to be monitoring those groups now. They got their hands slapped in the 70's and all but stopped monitoring hard left radical groups (excpet they contiued to look for fugitives). The FBI is too consumed with infiltrating the "militia" groups- to the extent that some have said there are more FBI agents and informants in the militias than real members.

Yeah- but even those groups are more of an annoyannce than anything else. I just don't think these tattoed dope smoking slackers are a threat to anyone but themselves (as the idiot who fell from the bridge demonstrated.)

Are you blind? David H. is giving us a huge wake-up call, because he knows, he was with-in the groups like these. I take him seriously.

I am not blind. I just think these groups haven't reached the stage of threat that we had when the Weathermen, black panthers, and the SLA were blowing things up, assassinating politicians and killing cops. But even then they were a pathetic group of sickos who never presented a serious challenge to the security of the nation (and Horowitz himself said this in his book "Destructive Generation".) Can these groups become more dangerous? Yes. Should they be nipped in the bud now? Yes. But I think Horowitz has allowed the emotion of the times and his own past inflate these clowns to a level of alarm they don't deserve.

I actually have bumped into a few of these clowns. I never let them know I am a conservative but engage them in a Q&A. I have found that these guys have cult like beliefs in a couple of Left Wing authors and nothing else. They are what I call half educated. They read Noam Chomsky and a few others and absolutley nothing else. I ask them if they have read a conservative author like Burke or Adma Smith. Never even heard of them. They are not "Free thinkers" at all- but cultists. I have never met more narrow minded and less well read people. Another big clue in- few have any religious belief and were exposed to none as children and almost all are from divorced families.

This article touches but not explore the basic problem that the United States of America is a divided nation. On one side, we have those who desire the strong, healthy nation based on the principles given to us by our Founding Fathers and generally upheld by our government for many years. The best expression of this side was the Republican victory in the 1994 Congressional elections. On the other side, we have those who want to make us into a kind of fascist/communist country like what the early communists wanted the Soviet Union to be. The clearest expression of this side is Bill Clinton. Between these two sides is an apathetic public that doesn't see this struggle. They will swing from one side to another based on half-truths presented by the media.

I don't how to do it, but if we want the USA to remain the great country that we've come to know and love, we must crush the side represented by Bill Clinton and the protestors. Those who are not so corrupted that they can't be changed must be shown that what they support is evil, and they must reject it. The others must be made so unwelcome that they leave this country.

WFTR
Bill

I have found that these guys have cult like beliefs in a couple of Left Wing authors and nothing else. They are what I call half educated. They read Noam Chomsky and a few others and absolutley nothing else. I ask them if they have read a conservative author like Burke or Adma Smith. Never even heard of them. They are not "Free thinkers" at all- but cultists. I have never met more narrow minded and less well read people.

You have described them exactly. I know some of them VERY well - family members who have been to federal prison for sabatogue. They 've had one idea in their life and they've been milking it for 40 years.

What makes these people dangerous now is their affinity for Islamic extremists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.