Several years ago Islamic radicals declared war on the United States. In 2001 their agents hijacked civilian airliners and drove them into skyscrapers and into the Pentagon. Thousands of Americans perished, hundreds of billions were lost in the blinking of an eye. The U.S. response, and the West's response, was initially directed at bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan and his supporters in the Afghan government. As might be expected, the anti-war movement was against the bombing of Afghanistan. When President Bush invaded Iraq, the anti-war movement received additional fuel, since the reasons for invading Iraq were weaker than the reasons for fighting Islamists in Afghanistan. As ever, American morale was on an unsteady foundation. If the United States failed to win easy victories, or failed to win Islamic support for its cause, then U.S. policy would surely fail. Recognizing this fact, the United States appealed to Muslims in the war against the Muslim terrorists. This approach now proves disastrous.
Of course, the invasion of Iraq was successful as a military operation. The larger loss of American life came during the occupation and attempted transition to democracy. During the last three years America's credibility and diplomatic standing has also suffered. The Bush administration made many mistakes, as President Bush has admitted. These mistakes should have been avoided, but now it is too late. With the erosion of America's will power, with the loss of public support, President Bush will spend the rest of his presidency managing his own defeat. His war on terror is crumbling, and he has not reformed or improved U.S. intelligence or counterintelligence in a way that will change what inevitably follows. The Russians and Chinese will exploit America's failure in Iraq. And the radical Islamists will become even more dangerous than before 9/11.
Domestically, the American people may be about to withdraw their support from the Republican Party and its nominally conservative program. Some analysts believe the Democrats will take both houses of Congress. According to Larry J. Sabato and David Wasserman, "If little changes between now and Tuesday, there remains little question that the GOP is headed towards devastating losses. And though candidates continue to stress various issues, only one has truly come to define our politics this year: war." A Democrat majority in Congress will have its way in the Middle East, just as the Democratic majority had its way in the outcome of the Vietnam War. It must be admitted that appeasement has temporary advantages. (Emphasis should be placed on the word "temporary.")
Predictably, the public's exasperation with Bush's war policy will be mistaken for a Democratic mandate. And this mandate will be used to wreak an altogether different kind of havoc. The leftward tilt of the Democratic Party is stridently anti-capitalist and the free market should brace for the worst. If the social democrats in Europe have damaged the economic prospects of Germany and France, the situation in America will prove no different. On another front, the Democrats support amnesty for 10 million illegal aliens. The consequences of this amnesty could be nation shattering (in the long run). Expect future electoral victories for the Democrats since 10 million newly minted citizens will fortify the Democrat majority to near-impregnability. (The situation of California politics will be replicated on the national level.)
I will end with a quote from Brigitte Gabriel, whose analysis is sadly correct: "The terrorists have ... learned that they have a better chance of defeating us in Washington, D.C., and through the media than on the battlefield. Meanwhile, our politicians have forgotten the World War II lesson that appeasement never works...."
