Eric Blair Revisited
Eric Blair, better known to many as George Orwell, hit it directly on the head when he wrote, "Contrary to what some of my correspondents seem to think, I have no enthusiasm for air raids, either ours or the enemy’s. Like a lot of other people in this country, I am growing definitely tired of bombs. But I do object to the hypocrisy of accepting force as an instrument while squealing against this or that individual weapon, or of denouncing war while wanting to preserve the kind of society that makes war inevitable."
What disturbs the left about this is that we can see someone who actually understands that sometime war is the only war to secure 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. As he states, and it is true of all responsible, thoughtful Americans, we have no enthusiasm for body counts, bombings, nor - as the left puts it - sending our sons and daughters off to die.
But unlike the left, conservatives do not suffer from moral relativism where killing is bad in any and all situations. The Right understands that denouncing war while preserving the kind of society that makes war inevitable is a suicide pact. While many may not wish to aid terrorists, and while they may not wish to see America hurt again, these people are, as Stalin correctly identifies them, "Useful Idiots" to the cause of the terrorists.
The old Middle Eastern idea that an enemy of my enemy is my friend may not be true, but an enemy of my enemy can be a useful idiot, and that is what needs to be recalled every time those who hate Bush, and those who think terrorism needs to be treated with police actions speak. If we only retaliate tit for tat in response to individual acts of terror how many buildings will fall, how many schools might be invaded, how many food or water sources might be poisoned, or how many other acts of violence against us can be tolerated before they realize what we already know.
It is very discouraging to be calling Americans 'them' when it comes to fighting terror, but I can find no other term for someone who is against large actions to defend this great nation?
What disturbs the left about this is that we can see someone who actually understands that sometime war is the only war to secure 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. As he states, and it is true of all responsible, thoughtful Americans, we have no enthusiasm for body counts, bombings, nor - as the left puts it - sending our sons and daughters off to die.
But unlike the left, conservatives do not suffer from moral relativism where killing is bad in any and all situations. The Right understands that denouncing war while preserving the kind of society that makes war inevitable is a suicide pact. While many may not wish to aid terrorists, and while they may not wish to see America hurt again, these people are, as Stalin correctly identifies them, "Useful Idiots" to the cause of the terrorists.
The old Middle Eastern idea that an enemy of my enemy is my friend may not be true, but an enemy of my enemy can be a useful idiot, and that is what needs to be recalled every time those who hate Bush, and those who think terrorism needs to be treated with police actions speak. If we only retaliate tit for tat in response to individual acts of terror how many buildings will fall, how many schools might be invaded, how many food or water sources might be poisoned, or how many other acts of violence against us can be tolerated before they realize what we already know.
It is very discouraging to be calling Americans 'them' when it comes to fighting terror, but I can find no other term for someone who is against large actions to defend this great nation?
posted by Edward W. Prather at 10:26
<< Home