"Blogging took off in the wake of 9-11 precisely because we weren’t united, even
then. There was a sort of illusory unity, but shortly after 9-11 and as it
became clear that we would have to invade Afghanistan, as the press started
reporting on the “brutal Afghan winter” and all that claptrap, that unity
started evaporating. The hard left had already started generating its anti-war
machine and the “international community” was already fretting about the US
hegemon and its mad rush to war."
I have to agree with Michelle on this one. I think that the country would be split by a new attack, and it wouldn't split into the clean divisions of left and right either. There would be those who wanted the presidents head on a stick, but that would mean groups from both the left and the right would feel like he failed in protecting us. Some groups would be ready to march into Iran or Syria or whatever country it was that was linked to the attack. The rest of the world would fear our response - while they would come forward supporting America. Other parties would be for bringing all our troops home immediately.
I can hear you assuming that the left would be for bringing the troops home, and the right would be for going to war. I think that is wrong, I think that parts of the left and the right would want the troops to return, for different reasons. Even when there are shared ends, the motivations can cause there to be a lack of unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment