I Guess He's Right

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is taking a lot of flak for his assertion that "the war is lost".

The problem is...he's right.

Not militarily. Not in terms of the Bush administration's policies. Rather, it is lost here at home.

It is lost because of the inability of Bush et al to rally public support for a necessary conflict.

It is lost because of the power lust of the Democratic party, all too willing to sell out the long-term security of the United States to satisfy their Bush Derangement Syndrome desires.

It is lost because of the willingness of the media, here and abroad, to do whatever it takes to demonstrate their waning power in this country - even if it means fabrication, distortion and omission.

And it is lost because of the increased lack of backbone of the American public, who simultaneously complain about how this can't be a real war because they haven't been asked to "sacrifice" - and that the government is looking too hard at their library records.

The number 3000 gets used a lot to refer to the September 11 attacks - but it isn't the right number. The Islamic terrorists did not hijack four planes in an attempt to kill 3000 people. The World Trade Center typically contained upwards of 100,000 people. The Pentagon holds 26,000 people - and the leaders of our national military. The Capitol building holds a few thousand people - and the leaders of our national legislature. That was the target on that day - around 150,000 people and a crippling of our national government.

President Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union speech, told us that the war against Islamic terrorism was a different kind of war, and that it would last many years, decades even. I thought the American people might rise to the occasion. But the murders of September 11 managed to sustain the American drive for almost four years before fading into the usual backbiting.

So we know where the bar is set. To actually fight and win the war on terror, America will have to sustain much higher losses - which pretty much means the loss of a major city. And I'm not talking about a New Orleans-style loss - I mean the complete loss of a large city and its residents. Nuclear, biological, whatever - we've decided that losing dozens or hundreds in "small" skirmishes (like September 11th) is acceptable losses.

The attack will come, since we have decided to wait for it rather than prevent it. I can only hope when it does, it does not strike a city that holds my friends or family. But that's the best I'm hoping for now.