Steyn on Kerry on Islam

Fresh from finding Churchill's assessment of Islam, Mark Steyn considers Islam and a potential President Kerry (free registration required):

With every month, nuclear knowhow gets dissipated a little further into the murkier corners of the world. With every year, the demographic changes in Europe render America's old alliances more and more obsolescent. Even if Kerry's in the White House, French troops aren't going to be fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Yanks in any major Muslim country: Kerry wouldn't either, if he had Chirac's Muslim population.

Sloth favours the Islamists. Readers may recall that I wanted Bush to invade Iraq before the first anniversary of 9/11. If he had done, he'd have saved himself a whole lot of trouble, and we might even be rid of the mullahs or Boy Assad by now. The President has to be a terminator: he has to terminate regimes and structures that support Islamist terrorism. And, if every bigshot associated with the cause winds up like Uday and Qusay, the ideology will become a lot less fashionable. All these girlie-man options sound so reasonable, but they're a fool's evasion, an excuse to put off indefinitely the fights that have to be fought -- in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere. . .

[T]he Islamists have made a bet -- that we're too soft and decadent to see this through to the finish. This November, one way or another, they'll get their answer.

Steyn's right, and US News and World Reports senior writer Michael Barone agrees: "In the short run, appeasement seems the more conciliatory, thoughtful, nuanced way to deal with terrorists. But in the long run, it tends not to work."

Radical Islam didn't suddenly materialize three years ago. Muslim terrorists have been murdering Americans and at war with America for two decades. On various occasions, appeasement's been tried, by President Reagan in Beirut and for eight years under President Clinton. But Islam kept coming; American inaction was never enough.

So the long run's arrived. Along with a choice. Kerry and the Dems insist non-intervention and negotiation will promote worldwide peace. The Bush Administration opposes appeasement--which failed for Neville Chamberlain and just provoked a new wave of terrorism thanks to Philippine President Gloria Arroyo. Kerry claims American can choose to cut and run. Secretary of State Colin Powell knows otherwise: "We were very disappointed in the actions of the Philippine government. . . in effect, the kidnappers were rewarded for kidnapping."

So November 2nd will elect more than merely a President. The stakes--the next generation and its future. The issue--a "referendum" on foreign policy. The question--what will best safeguard America and Americans in the 21st Century? A policy proven in history and reality? Or infantile illusions that allegedly authorize indecision and inaction?

Unsure? Imagine each approach is a burglar alarm. Then select one, and only one, to guard your home and family.

Still confused? Consult Churchill, a Czech, a captive--or a child.