 |
|
Thinking About the War That Has Been Visited on Us
By Jay Nordlinger
|
 |
don't want the president to be a spiritual leader now. Let the churches,
synagogues, and so on handle that. I want the president to see to the
physical protection of the nation.
The
president speaks poetically about how our enemies can strike at "the
foundation of our buildings" but not at "the foundation of our
country" (or whatever). Screw that. It's the president's job
the job of the government to protect the foundations of our buildings.
Just protect the foundations of our buildings that's enough. Keep
us from dying at the hands of our enemies. That's enough.
Save the Billy Graham
talk for later. If at all.
As
Benjamin Netanyahu said, democracies had better "get off the fence."
France and Italy, in particular, have for years been coddling, appeasing,
and protecting Arab terrorists. The Italians jailed the hijackers of the
cruise ship Achille Lauro, the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, the
wheelchair-bound Jew whom they threw into the sea. Then they released
the hijackers, one by one, lest they have Arab terrorism on their soil.
Anyone can understand
why the Italians didn't want terrorism on their soil can't blame
them for that, sort of. But their appeasement and timidity have contributed
to pushing that terrorism onto our soil (which, in a grim way,
is kind of an honor). And we should make the Italians, the French, and
others like them pay a price: If you're not our allies in this instance,
you are not our allies at all.
Period.
The
PGA Tour has canceled its golf tournament. That's a dumb idea. Our enemies
shouldn't be allowed to cripple us. They should be allowed to cripple
us only to the extent that they cripple us directly e.g., no one
can go to work at the World Trade Center tomorrow. But the golfers can
certainly play their tournament in St. Louis. Our enemies should not be
permitted to deny us our way of life, to the extent possible. We should
keep going, in defiance of them. Else they win more than they already
have.
Politicians and other
civic types like to talk about "our way of life," or "the
American way of life." I always found this the cheapest of Fourth
of July oratory: What did it mean, "the American way of life"?
Americans live in different ways; we are strikingly dissimilar. "The
American way of life" was just vulgar rhetoric.
But then, several
years ago, I read a news story out of California: High schools were rescheduling
their football games to Friday afternoon, rather than Friday night, in
an attempt to prevent or minimize gang violence. And then it hit me: That's
what people mean, or could mean, by "our way of life." These
criminal thugs were, all by themselves, abolishing Friday-night high-school
football, and if Friday-night high-school football doesn't represent American
life, what does?
And this reminds
me of something else: Our fight against "terrorism" is not all
that unlike our fight against crime generally. It is a fight against people
who would deny us our way of life a way of life that is rightful
and worth defending.
Ever
since childhood, I've been against flying flags at half-mast after something
like this. That doesn't seem to me like respect; that seems to me like
submission, like an inappropriately bowed head. Our flag should fly higher
than ever after we've been attacked. We should lower our flags when a
beloved old statesman dies in his bed. We should not lower our
flags under duress. If the Israelis lowered their flag every time their
people were killed, it would never fly.
Our flag should wave
proudly and high, in part as a big middle finger pointed at our enemies.
My
wife is still reeling from the fact that the U.S. Open the tennis
tournament held here in New York recently wouldn't have the national
anthem. You can't force a private organization like the U.S. Tennis Association
to have the national anthem. But you can try to force such people to feel
a little shame.
Never has the anthem
been more appropriate: Amid the death and destruction, is the flag still
there? People love "America the Beautiful" because it
celebrates only the physical beauty of this country: amber waves of grain,
spacious skies, purple-mountain majesty, and so on. You can have physical
beauty in any totalitarian country Cuba comes to mind.
The national anthem,
by contrast, celebrates the spirit, the pluck, the audacity of
the country. That's why the Left (to use an easy shorthand) hates it.
As
John Podhoretz pointed out in his New York Post column, the New
York Times on the very day of the attacks on us ran
a fawning, nauseating, immoral profile of Billy Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn,
the two starriest terrorists of the Weather Underground. These terrorists
homegrown were bombers, and among their acts was the bombing
of the Pentagon.
Some months ago,
I wrote about Susan Rosenberg, the Weatherman whom Clinton pardoned in
those last, frenetic, abhorrently irresponsible hours. Why Clinton pardoned
Rosenberg or rather, commuted her sentence is a mystery,
except that liberals have always had a soft spot for the hard, violent
Left. They must consider the criminals truer, more admirable than they,
at some level. Liberals in an earlier time (this is to be generous) were
always kind of jealous of the Communists. They made the liberals seem
so impure, so compromising.
Anyway, I ended that
piece about Rosenberg and Clinton with a quote from Billy Ayres himself,
culled from Collier and Horowitz's marvelous book on the New Left, Destructive
Generation: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird. What a country, America!"
Yes, what a country.
And what a sickening newspaper of record, sometimes.
There
will at last have to be a reckoning with the Arab world. And Arab peoples
will have to look deep within themselves. All the correct people are saying
that the vast majority of Arabs loathe this kind of violence, that only
a tiny faction of people commit and support it. Oh? Can with know this
for sure? Our liberal foreign correspondents which is to say, our
foreign correspondents go to Arab capitals and meet with their
friends in the best hotels and cafés, and their friends
their sources tend to be the most liberal, most Westernized Arabs
there are. Do our correspondents meet enough with the man in the street:
with the man who is cheering his head off that thousands of our loved
ones have been murdered by other Arabs?
Incidentally, where
are those good, decent Arabs who despise what has been done to us? Are
they so scared of the Arabs who are allowed to represent them before the
world that they must remain mute?
And what of our Arab-American
groups? Civil liberties, fine. Some guy gets held up for ten extra minutes
at the airport what a shame. Some kid gets taunted on the playground
another shame. Life is tough all over. But how about hearing some
statements from Arab-American groups that these are evil acts and that
they will support our government in seeking out and destroying all of
those who have done this to us (meaning, the states that support them,
too)?
Now is perhaps a
good time for Arab-Americans to emphasize the American part of that name.
In fact, why not drop the hyphen altogether, just as Teddy Roosevelt suggested?
In
New York, policemen are ringing mosques, just as they are ringing synagogues.
If this doesn't say something about the greatness of America, I don't
know what does. But greatness doesn't extend to allowing those to whom
we extend our hospitality to kill us. If they are plotting death and destruction
in those mosques, in addition to holding services: the FBI ought to have
people inside.
Remember
Arafat's double game: He talks one way to the West, another way to the
Arabs. He says one thing to the New York Times, Le Monde,
ABC, and so on, and another thing to his followers in the streets and
in the mosques. I have learned over many years not to care
at all about what he says to the West. Let him have his photo-op, with
his ostentatious and galling donation of blood. Let him save that blood
for all the Israelis he has helped to kill and maim. All I care about
is what he says to the celebrants and murderers in the streets. That's
all that matters.
Those
who guess even guiltily that there may be some connection
between the Durban conference and these acts aren't guilty at all. In
fact, they are quite reasonable. The goal of the Durbanites was to delegitimize
Israel: to paint it as racist, cruel, and oppressive, and therefore as
unworthy of existence.
And if this is true,
what's wrong with destroying Israel, and its one friend?
The European nations,
naturally, are spared this destruction, because they won't support Israel.
Those Europeans should be ashamed of their very immunity.
Barbara
Olson was a magnificent spirit, brave to the end not wetting her
pants, shaking in her boots, resigning herself to her fate, but working
the phone, trying to do something to thwart her attackers' evil designs.
This is the authentic American spirit, the ideal one. May it rise up in
the heart of every American, and person.
|