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.

I have found that these guys have cult like beliefs in a couple of Left Wing authors and
nothing else.

This is a great description of the rank & file. As in any cult, there is a necessary gap in the perceptions of the leaders and those of the masses.

What happened in the 70's was that after they didn't get their way thru marches, propaganda, intimidation and *trashing*, some escalated into more serious crime. Once someone is marginalized by several arrests, their anger and frustration can be exploited into kidnapping and armed robbery. Prison can be as much a sort of mark of achievement in some circles as a deterrant. I recall average middle class youths in their 20's speaking in hushed tones of awe of those who had been in Nam and acquired skill sets that would help the revolution, even after protesting the war in terms of immorality.

In any revolution, there are layers of operatives. Those who are cadre are quite satisfied to see the movement marginalized in the early stages. They intend to exploit those who end up w/nothing left to tie them to law-abiding society. In the already controlled mind, it isn't hard to get people to see this present Administration as the ultimate in all evil and then switch that hatred to those who support them and eventually to the idea of America itself.

It is interesting that Bush and Blair are both men of faith.
While liberal Jews and Christians have been recruited to the propaganda/human shield POV and actions, there is a visceral disgust on the Left for anyone w/an exoteric (external authority)faith. Notice that esoteric (inner authority or *I am god*)beliefs are encouraged by the destabilizers on the Left. This present incarnation of the revolution has made W and Tony into icons on which the crowds can focus.

Just don't dismiss these folks. IIRC, Arafat had a hand in the training of B-M and the Red Guards (may not have been both). There has been lots of discussion on FR of the NAZI/Soviet links of the Islamofacists and the last generation of revolutionaries. I see a real difference in the present crowd of warm bodies: these present ones are better organized, more serious, and are eager to be arrested. They are not as acculturated to the middle class American values as were those of us 30 years ago. Once someone has justified tree-spiking and fire-bombing in the name of Gaia and has already elevated population-reduction to an article of faith, how far are they from murder in the name of the revolution? The cadre doesn't expect to get everyone to become that radicalized and everyone isn't needed as long as 10% or so is sympathetic to the ultimate goal.

I have spoken to several of these current young *idealists* and one thing that struck me was that all have said they have no problem with the ideologies of the organizers, as long as they all have the same goal. Unlike the experience of some in this discussion, the ones I spoke to have university degrees; one is an employed organic chemist in a large East Coast pharmaceutical firm, for example. Another has a degree in Historic Preservation (this is a degree??) and works for a large architectural firm. I have known her since before she was born and we were close up until she went to college. Since I told her my perceptions of her movement and political beliefs, she has ignored me in social gatherings, even when we were face-to-face. It was chilling and her message was clear: don't confuse them w/the facts and expect them to disengage if you try to break thru the cult control.

Burkeman,

I appreciate your perspective. It is like the one I carried as a conservative at the U. of Oregon way back in the late '50's. It was already turning hard left and my role models on the right were such as classmate Neil Goldschmidt and my brother's wrestling partner, super Joe College Ken Kesey.

I thought it was "cool" to go see Gus Hall come speak. Wow, real freedom of speech! (CPUSA) Harmless guy fer sure.

Those of the "beat generation" appearing on the left bore a startling similarity to me then as this gaggle bears to you now, sort of harmless.

You may have missed my earlier point. I issue a caution you should pick up on.

The leaders, handlers of the clowns are "natural born killers". They are committed to the long haul, the destruction of our society and are relentless in their push from many similar fronts. Downplay these clowns as you may and you will find them no different than the innocent looking surrendering Iraqis in civilian clothes, their handlers waiting to kill you soon as you extend a hand of charity.

First define your enemy. These are the clueless footsoldiers of a hardened central core. Never, ever, ever underestimate the real enemy.

Nothing is new here, only the faces and the superficial. The relentless drive has continued in the rhythm of the communist dialectic throughout the decades. I realize by your age you have not yet seen the repetition but strongly advise you take it from those who have been there.

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.