Saturday, August 26, 2006

The Real Enemy

For quite some time I've questioned why we assume that attacking Iran would turn Iranians who hate the mullahs into pro-mullah nuclear weapon advocates. I've stated in support that those who hate President Bush wouldn't rally around the flag if the Woman's Studies Department at Berkeley was destroyed by al Qaeda:

I've long doubted that the Iranian people will rally to their hated government if we attack them. This runs counter to history when factions hated near enemies more than far enemies and saw foreign intervention as a means to defeat local enemies. I will point out again, would any attack by our Islamist enemies short of the destruction of the Berkeley Women's Studies Department inspire to rally to President Bush?

So this post at the Huffington Post (via Instapundit) is most instructive:

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate[.]

Yeah, chin up you bastard. Eggs and omelets, don't you know?

You know, I manage to go through my days without wishing horrors on our allies and friends who don't share our view of the jihadi threat. I don't want dead Germans or Frenchmen or Spaniards to prove the point they should fight with us fully.

It horrifies me that Americans can look on the bright side of another 9/11. But oh no, don't ever call them unpatriotic. Heaven forbid.