Saturday, April 07, 2007

While England was pretty humiliated by its impotent response to Iran's kidnapping of its military personnel, I'm not so sure America would have acquited itself a whole lot better had this happened to us...

Would our sailors and Marines have fought back and not allowed themselves to be taken prisoner without a fight? Perhaps, and while it is their responsibility to do so, I'm not sure they would. Maybe they would have thrown in the towel just as fast the British sailors did.

Would the Captain of the accompanying frigate have stood by and watched 15 of his men be taken off by the Iranians or would he have taken immediate action? Maybe he would have, or maybe he would have covered his a** by radioing for instructions from his superiors.

Would Americans soldiers have folded as fast as the British soldiers did and handed Iran a propaganda coup by appearing on Iranian TV and confessing their fault or would they have resisted, given only name, rank and serial number and not gone on TV like their were someone's show-and-tell presentation? Who knows?

Would the President have blustered and done nothing of import like Blair or would he have ordered an immediate response (not necessarily military) to put pressure on the Mad Mullahs to let our people go immediately? Would the President have run to the UN and cried for help? Or would he have acted on his own, as these were American soldiers being held, and claimed that he didn't need no stinkin permission to take action to protect American lives? Again, maybe, maybe not.

Would the American people have been nonchalant about the crisis or would they have been outraged at the Iranians and put pressure on the President and Congress to do whatever it took to get their countrymen back? I'd like to think we would do the latter... or would the Rosie O'Donnells get on their soapbox and start screaming that it was our fault, that this was part of some scheme to justify attacking Iran for its oil, that George Bush (or whichever Republican was President at the time) was the real threat to world peace and so on and so forth?

As much as we trash Europe (including England), and deservedly so, for their impotence, their willingness to turn a blind eye to the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, their refusal to cut commercial ties in support of their diplomatic endeavors, and their utter and complete refusal to even consider military action against those who most assuredly deserve it, a significant portion of America thinks that is just hunky-dory.

They've always been with us, the Katha Pollits, the Rosie O'Donnell, the Ward Churchills, the Noam Chomskys. The ones who, for reasons I can't even begin to understand, hate our country and its leaders more than they hate and fear the truly dangerous people who threaten America (as a point of contrast, even though I think Nancy Pelosi is a truly stupid and petty woman who ought to be given no more responsibility than that of a tour guide at a national museum, I by no means think she is more of a danger to America than the Mad Mullahs who run Iran).

For some reason I still don't understand, they didn't surface right after 9/11 (although, as Katha Pollit demonstrated with her silly and inane anti-flag screen, they didn't all hide), when I truly felt there would be more people screaming that we had it coming, that we should have expected that, that the terrorists were driven by us to do what they did and so on.

But I doubt the next time we're attacked they'll be so silent. I expect America will be attacked again and, potentially, in ways far worse than what happened on 9/11. And while I would hope that America would rally around the victims and cry out as one for retribution to be taken against the perpetrators, I fully expect there to a not-insignificant contingent of those who will take to the streets and the airwaves and scream, in varying order, that Bush did it, it was his fault, it was our fault, that violence never solved anything, that we have already tried responding militarily and see what that got us, that we can't strike back because we truly don't know who did it (videos claiming responsibility will be dismissed as frauds ginned up by the CIA), that we can't respond without getting the approval of the UN and our 'allies' around the world.... etc..... etc.... etc.

And the truly sad news? A bunch of those running for President (all of whom happen to be Democrats), if they won the Presidency, would owe their victory in some part to people like this. Would they challenge the crazies who helped them win? Or would they, fearing the crazies would drop their support for them, stand with the crazies... and, by implication, our enemies?

I wish I could say for sure that no President would follow the lead of the domestic crazies.... but I'm afraid I can't.

UPDATE: looks like Michelle Malkin might be thinking along the same lines....