What Would The World Look Like If The "Terrorists" Won?

As the W, Rove and Co unravels in front of our eyes, we can observe a few things and ask, at least in the hypothetical, one very important question. Business as usual for the W, Rove and means continuing to lower the bar on ethics and performance to subterranean levels. First, lets examine the ethical standard bar:

Q Can I just follow up on one thing? I think I had you saying the President has full confidence in Attorney General Gonzales, and then the President has confidence in Paul Wolfowitz. Is there a distinction there?

MS. PERINO: No.

The larger question remains, if the AG wasn't an integral player in the decision to fire the judges, who was? Oh, and it's okay for people to promote and give bonuses to their mistresses/girlfriends and still have the full confidence of a man who suggest he stands for family values?

Now let's look at performance, in particular the current status quo approach of the President's much loved "troop surge." There are some questions to raise here:

To the Editor:

Why not give the president what he wants — a blank check to finance the troops. Oh, by the way, let’s do it on a pay-as-you-go basis.

No big fuss, just adjust the tax rates up to pay for the troops and their activities.

Then let’s see who wants to support the troops! That will bring the cost of the war into everyone’s sight!

Dick Orenstein

Sarasota, Fla., April 15, 2007

Well, we know that won't happen as the President is not in favor of universal sacrifice for his war. He's in favor of you sacrificing your sons and daughters and increasing the tax burden on future generations to pay for Iraq. He certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience himself for his war.

But let's get to the thrust of this particular post. At times, it's readily apparent that some comments on my posts are substantially more brilliant than the original post. There have been occasions where I take an opportunity to elevate some person’s comments to the front page because, well, I couldn't have said it any better.

Toward that end, here's a question for you from an anon commentator. Lets' wrestle with this one for a bit: What if the Terrorists "win?" What then?

Man shall not live by bread alone - Matthew 4:4

Nor can terrorists live on terror alone. At some point they have to deliver.

Terrorists don't deliver security or municipal services like sewer, water, schools, and welfare.

Attacks on the West don't provide anything tangible for terror constituencies. Breaking other people's crockery is essentially pointless. But terror provokes Western counterattacks from which spring more terrorists.

If terrorists aren't smart enough to learn that terrorism doesn't get them anything, we should be smart enough to learn that counter-terrorism doesn't produce anything but more terrorists.

A terror-state, were such a thing to be encouraged into existence, would force terrorists to be responsible. A terror state would also make a nice target should terrorists prove irresponsible.

A fool who has something to lose is easier to deal with than one who has nothing to lose. We need to find a way to give terrorists something to lose. Terrorists have yet to face up to the problem of, 'What happens if we win?' We should encourage that kind of thinking.