Conservatives and liberals have reacted much differently to the Navy SEALs operation that killed Osama bin Laden. On the right, there was pride in the capabilities, precision and bravery of an elite commando team. There were no illusions that victory had been achieved over international terrorism and Islamist fanaticism. But there was a feeling of satisfaction, if not relief, that retributive justice was finally delivered to a heinous mass murderer. There was hope that this could be a turning point in a protracted and continuing war, along with renewed resolve that we persevere for as long as it takes.
On the left, there was no celebration. The liberal penchant for guilt was indulged with hand-wringing about a lack of due process in what may have been a planned “kill mission.” (To which my response was: “So what? We’re at war.”) Abstract moralizers lamented the tragedy of any human life being taken (like Hitler?). But even more revealing of the leftist mindset and their detachment from the real world was their indignation over continuing security precautions, which they regard as an affront to civil rights.
They fretted that bin Laden’s death would not cause the Department of Homeland Security to be eliminated; that the Patriot Act would not be repealed; that the CIA and FBI would still be allowed to conspire (i.e., share information to thwart terrorist plots); that Gitmo would remain open; that the Transportation Security Administration would continue to inconvenience air travelers; that terrorist phone calls would be monitored without warrants (but with court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act); that captured terrorists might be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques; that American troops will remain abroad, and so on.
All of that is true for the simple reason that we’re still at war with suicidal fanatics who are intent on randomly killing innocent American civilians. Yes, these security measures are inconvenient, intrusive, expensive and compromising of some of our principles, requiring tradeoffs that rational people are forced to make when personal freedom and security are in conflict. That’s why, in past wars, we’ve sometimes had to resort to a military draft, curfews, rationing, blackouts, price controls and conversion of commercial industry to war production.
So what’s the liberal remedy, the alternatives? End airport security? Discontinue intelligence gathering? Replace Gitmo with a terrorist “catch and release” policy, like sport fishing? On the one hand, liberals are paranoid about compromises to absolute civil rights; on the other, they’re in denial when it comes to external and internal security threats. They imagine we can someday beat our swords into plowshares. You had better hope not. If history is a guide, those who do will end up pulling a plow under the whip of those who still have their swords.
The utopian, liberal vision of the world is incompatible with unpleasant and perpetual foreign conflict, so their instinct is to deny or minimize it. That way they can concentrate all their energies on their obsessive nannyism, protecting us from ourselves by passing laws regulating what we eat, drink, wear, drive, buy, sell, earn, own, inhale, etc. Such laws also intrude on our personal freedom, but that’s of no concern when liberals are making the rules.
Ever since 9/11, we’ve heard a liberal cliche that restrictive security measures, the Patriot Act, U.S. military deployments and all manner of reactions to Islamist terrorism are evidence that Osama bin Laden has won. No, bin Laden hasn’t won. He now sleeps with the fishes. When the last church and synagogue are torn down and replaced with mosques and when 300 million Americans are forced five times a day to turn toward Mecca, prostrate themselves and shout “Allah Akbar,” then, God forbid, bin Laden will have won, posthumously. Ain’t gonna happen, but no thanks to American liberals.
Freelance columnist Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.
