I mentioned in my introductory post that we are presently engaged in World War IV. I take this view because of the writings of those such as Norman Podhoretzand Mark Helprin, both of whom have said it better than can I. I take this view because I stood and watched the World Trade Center Towers fall to the ground, as my fellow citizens jumped to death on September 11, 2001. I take this view because, but for the heroic actions of some Americans over the fields of Pennsylvania, we would probably still be rebuilding the White House or the Capitol Dome. I take this view because I know that today there are thousands of suicidal jihadists who would love to meet with 72 virgins in the next life, but not before they kill as many Americans as possible as their parting gift to this life.
World War IV is a term I will probably use alot on this site. I don't think the term can be overused. The fundamental challenge we now face as a society is to resist the temptation to assume that the worst is past us. As Tom Junod wrote in Esquire in August of this year, the enemy does not think the worst is past us:
"We were attacked three years ago without warning or predicate event. The attack was not a gesture of heroic resistance nor the offshoot of some bright utopian resolve, but the very flower of a movement that delights in the potential martyrdom expressed in the squalls of the newly born. It is a movement that is about death, that worships death, that seeks to accomplish death whereever it can, on a scale both intimate and global."As Americans, we are an optimistic people, and this is a good thing. I fear that optimism is not our ally, however, on this present issue, in this present age.
If the premise that we are engaged in World War IV is accurate, then it follows that the issues of the day should be placed in the context of this fact. One example as food for thought: how much national energy should be directed at the issue of whether consenting adults who happen to be gay wish to be married? Another example along these lines: how much national energy should properly be directed at what our Presidential candidates--one of whom will be making the key decisions as to our conduct of World War IV--did thirty years ago as young men in their 20's?
I realize that the current political parties would like to frame the national debate around selected and poll-driven issues such as these, but that does not mean that the rest of us must go along for the ride. This is our country. We should frame the debate.
I say let's start doing just that.
Comments