After the Next Attack: Will U.S. Become Spain?

Great post Mike and something that bears repeating over and over again. The right became rabid over immigration and those Republicans willing to sell out on that issue but where are the calls on this issue? An issue that is of huge importance, even more then illegal immigration. Immigration needs to be fixed, but we are in a war and giving up the field of battle to the enemy is just plain humiliating, wrong, and dangerous. Not to mention dishonoring the memories of those who gave their lives to this battle.

Ya know Mike, I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now (long background story there as to what sparked the thought). I’ve been wondering a bit further than just the politically correct/left response. I’ve been thinking about the nation’s response. Remember, despite the popular notion that everyone was united by 911, we were not. Anti-war/Give-peace-a-chance protests were everywhere before the US even invaded Afghanistan. Teddy Kennedy led the Senate ravings by pushing and pushing for more time to talk with the Taliban (the political arm of AQ at the time). Tens of thousands protested in NYC, LA, and of course SF. Pakistan almost collapsed because of the hundreds of thousands of protesters. The UK government as well almost collapsed because of the massive pre-retaliation protests. I could go on and on, and I’ve got some timelines, links, and articles to demonstrate the point, but really, one needs only to look at the verbal response individuals took on Sept 12.

Half of everyone you’d talk to was saying,
“911 Changed everything.

The other half of people were saying,
“If we stop going to the movies […or change in any way], then the terrorists win.”

To this end, I submit that there was never a real unity, only a face level one. No courage was gained by the nation as a whole-some temporary willingness, but not a real, deep change of heart, direction, courage, etc.

Now, given that AQ’s striving for the Holy Grail (pun intended) of multiple WMD attacks on the US, I’ve been wondering what the response would be. Will America revive it’s faux unity from 912? Nah. We’re too divided, and too many hate/disbelieve anything the Bush Admin does or says. That’s where their priority is: oppose W at any and all costs.

Ok, well, what about the effects of a multiple WMD attack on the US? Well, think about this…they’re not aiming for Akron, Ohio. Al Queda’s next attack (if they had their way) would be:
1) multiple, simultaneous attacks
2) easily covered by MSM live to instill max terror
3) include/focus on WMD for mass casualties
4) targets are not military, but civilian
5) aimed at mass casualties (more than 911)

and the best way to do that is….to hit one or more of the cities that have been the focus of the thwarted attacks:

New York
Los Angeles
Washington
San Fran

Hmmm, now take all that, and ask yourselves…what happens if America loses all four of those cities? Whether it’s a nuke, or a dirty bomb that makes people flee the cities for years, or a bio bomb that makes people flee in fear, etc. What happens if a WMD attack hits those 4 cities, and drives people from them (or worse kills most of the inhabitants?)

It’s doomsday for sure, but what effect does losing the core of mass media, publishing, and so much power that resides in NYC? What effect does losing Los Angeles have on the mass media, movies, television, nad so much more that resides there? What effect is there on the political debate if the hub of politics is destroyed or its residents driven from Washington DC? And what effect is there on the left if San Fran is destroyed in nuclear fire or its residents driven out by the atomic radiation of a dirty bomb?

I am NOT looking forward to such an attack in ANY way possible, but I am asking, “what happens to the political divide between ‘changes everything’ and ‘if we stop [blank’ then the terrorists win'”? It’s no secret that the political left tends to be the majority in American cities, and those four cities are the hubs of the politically left side of the spectrum. Conversely, the politically right end of the spectrum dominates most towns in rural areas-particularly between the coasts/between the cities that top AQ’s target list.

So, if Al Queda gets its way, is it the right wingers, RINOs, and independents in the heartland who are at risk, or is it the media moguls and elitists, political action committee headquarters and lobbyists, as well as the leaders of the politically left? Again, I’m not trying to say that America needs an attack to wipe out the Democratic Party base or anything like that. What I’m babbling about is that the Al Queda threat is highest for those in the deepest denial; those who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, those who oppose the war on terror, those who oppose the war in Iraq, Bush haters, and yes, those who advocate talking with our enemies or trying to appease head-sawer-offers.

So, (at long last) I ask/add to Mike’s question re the American response to the next attack:

How would the left respond if the core of the left were destroyed by Al Queda in simultaneous WMD attacks on the four cities that are the cornerstones of the politically left? Would they still seek talks with Osama, call for a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan? Would they still seek to rename the Global War on Terror and call the Iraq War a mere situation? Would they march in the streets against the terrorists or against those seeking to kill the terrorists? Would they have streets to march on in any event, and would they even be alive to protest? How will the left respond if the lose they’re 4 most important city centers of political opposition as well as (lets hope not) millions of people who support and promote their political agenda?