Hell-Hawks

History is laden with societal changes. Nations defeat, coerce, bribe, and influence other nations. Societies are absorbed, adsorbed, decimated, won-over, and eradicated. But never in the history of humankind has the likes of what we've done in Iraq been equaled.

But the fidgety ones say it's time to change the channel. Enough already with the same, boring story, day in, day out. The television-inspired attention span of a 5 year-old has assumed control of our hearts and minds, and while I expected France, or Germany, or even the UK to respond in such a manner, I really didn't think we'd be as prone to demanding the impossible just for the sake of relieving the tedious boredom of same-old-same-old. The concept of 'In it for the long haul' is now an alien one.

Such is the harbinger of our own defeat. Our enemy has been at it for 1400 years. Implacable. Never tiring, always waiting to pounce. If, under the leadership of a hawkish, conservative President, we cannot stay the course then society as we know it is doomed.

John Podhoretz tackles, sort of, the subject:

New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

"What's missing here is what has been missing from the most hard-headed discussions of Iraq since the end of the 2004 election, and that is an understanding of just why President Bush formulated the freedom doctrine.
The problem is that the policies advocated by the "hell hawks" and by defeatist Democrats offer no real possibility of an end to the war against Islamic radicalism. It will go on forever.
And if it does, it seems certain that at some point in the next few decades, millions of people are going to die in a successful terrorist assault using weapons of mass destruction.
Why? Because there is no way to stop the delivery of such a weapon if the delivery system is a single person willing to die to get it done. The only way to prevent it is to change the terms under which such people live, to offer them something to hope for besides virgins in paradise.
Seen in this light, the Bush freedom doctrine isn't simply a starry-eyed exercise in ludicrous optimism. It's a real-world solution to a real-world problem.
The only real answer to the Bush freedom doctrine is the one posed by those who believe there is no real War on Terror. They range from the Michael Moore, Bush-may-have-been-involved types to ex-neocon Francis Fukuyama, who states plainly that Bush & Co. overestimated the threat from terrorism."
_______________________________
John is referring to something along the lines of a backpack nuke, and that simply isn't going to happen anytime soon. They aren't available at the local market, the radiation from the detonation of such a device is signatory, and thereby traceable, meaning we would know from whence it came within days of it's use and be deciding upon the appropriate level of retaliation before the fires went out. It would mean that a nation, or nations, declared nuclear war upon us and how likely is that.

Regardless, terrorists can do plenty of damage without nukes but the level of destruction is predetermined, commensurate with the level of payback. No one wants the finger pointing back to them. The wise terrorist can be patient, take a wait-for-Hillary approach, and in all likelihood that's what they'll do. Doesn't have to be a Rodham at the helm, any dove will do, and the chance of a massive US retaliation dims significantly.

That, my friends, is why they haven't hit us again. Let the American people tire of so long and costly a war, await the arrival of a liberal White House, then hammer us good.