Terrorism and Safety, Specifically...

You're right of course, I didn't really address that specifically and rather used the opportunity to vent my ever darkening mood towards the future of the country I love.

About that "mood", let me just add this... although brewing for some time it has no doubt redoubled after two events. In back to back fashion I took a class exclusively on "The Old Testament" (taught as a history class), and then plunged myself into The History of Rome Podcast (of which I'm on episode 77, of 179). And what I was forced into realizing was that the country I love so much and who's founding I believe was divine providence (how else one explains the accumulation of genius in what we collectively refer to as the founding fathers is beyond me), may be - and I stress may be - nothing more than a blip on history's radar. What I gleam from these two historical story lines is a people that again and again had the opportunity to right their ship, and just didn't. And what's even more evident is that their enemies were never able to conquer them externally until they first disabled themselves internally. With that model in mind I look at our historic arc and I fret. So, prior to this, did I expect that the United States of America would last the proverbial "forever." Short answer? Ya. I kinda did. Naive, sure. But that was in fact my world view - we're big, we're bad, we're here to stay. That admittedly juvenile world view has been shattered. And what's worse, the internal disabling that seems to afflict all of history's great nations (pick one, Britain, Rome, et al) is so slow (as Titus eluded), so plodding and pedantic that if you stand up and shout about its' existence you're dubbed a crazy man. Will America be relegated to a few vague acknowledgements among the dominant culture 500 years from now? The name Washington most recognized as a casino resort? Will the more informed citizens do little more than reference a podcast or own a copy of Gibbons' equivalent? We certainly seem to be destined for such a fate in that no other great power has found themselves capable of avoiding it. It may be long after we are set to rest in the hills of this land, but a moment when our descendants see the Visigoths come crashing across those hills, is inevitable.

Everybody feeling cheered up yet? Hehehe... ok, to another cheery subject: Islamic terrorism.

I thought about your question Titus (now asked twice), and two points came to mind. 1.) Between 9/11 and the moment we complete our troop "wind down", or whatever autocratic label they've given it now, yes, we have been safer. Let me explain. The admirable aspects of the Patriot Act (allowing the CIA to communicate info to the FBI comes to mind), and the billions pored into hiring translators, and technology has indeed made us safer. Bare in mind, I'm not judging their impact on Civil Liberties here, only their impact on physical safety from Islamic Fascists. That we went over a decade without another major attack (I'm counting Boston as the bookend to 9/11) is evidence of this safety. In addition, whatever else you can criticize Bush for he did accomplish one bit of logistical genius. As of September 11th, 2001 the enemy had brought the theater of war to our backyard. Bush firmly reaffixed that theater to their backyard. This had a real advantage for our homeland. Every wannabe Jihadi and terrorist with half a brain and a whole prayer rug wanted to fight the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing it as their "duty" to drive the wicked West off Muslim land. I have no doubt that thousands of the (oft foreign) insurgents our boys smoked in those two theaters would have lined up as Jihadist cell members destined for our shores had Bush not reestablished the front lines "over there." So post 9/11 have we literally been physically safer? Yes. Unquestionably.

However, and here's point number 2.)... We did not secure a decisive WWII style victory against a very radical, very determined enemy over there. Our boys could whip them any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, but that's not the issue. Political correctness and the general softness (I don't know what else to call it) of our culture and modern leadership unequivocally preclude such a thing.  Our new "victory model" over seas looks closer to a Korean style win (and in time, perhaps closer to Vietnam). What does this mean? When our troops really do leave, thousands of battle hardened, experienced, explosives trained Jihadists could follow us home. In essence only delaying the homeland as a theater of war. Or, equally as bad, the battle hardened Islamists could systematically attempt to topple the secular regimes of the Near East (monarchs, dictators or democrats, it makes no difference to them - if they're not Wahhabi, they're dead); and thus produce a half dozen or more little Irans (or big ones). By the way, the latter looks to be the Islamist strategy de'jour for the moment, and the current US leadership seems to be spinning the Big 6 Wheel to decide whom they're going to support from day to day.

So to be as succinct as possible - From 9/11 to our total disengagement of Iraq/Afghanistan (currently underway), yes I believe we were indeed physically safer here in the US. However, post troop withdrawal going into the future? The civil liberties we relinquished in the previous decade combined with the battle hardened enemy we leave behind may, in the long term, leave us less safe indeed. The bottom line, bringing the battle to them was logistically sound. But our tactic - namely the unwillingness to unconditionally defeat and disable our foe's ability to wage war - was not. The lesson? Don't go to war unless you intend to decimate the enemy's capabilities. Otherwise you could end up less safe than when you started. And at this moment, I would argue that's the most likely outcome for us... so be a dear and cue up the next podcast of "The Rise and Fall of America", it's really starting to get interesting.