North Star Writers Group

Once again the world has learned of a disturbing Islamic fascist plot to murder thousands aboard airplanes by smuggling aboard liquid explosives. Luckily, it was discovered by British intelligence (with an assist from the U.S.) and stopped just in time. While we can and should be relieved, this should also lay bare for us the true chilling nature of the enemy we face – one so intractable that, in spite of having been born and raised in western culture, it can turn a seemingly normal person into a hellbent suicidal mass murderer, so much so that even their own children are valued only for their use as weapons.

How can ones so utterly depraved as to use their babies for disguising the bomb hidden in its bottle possibly be reasoned with? Simply asking the question provides the answer. Anyone capable of such a thing cannot be. And every minute wasted on such a futile endeavor only brings us a minute closer to the next attempted atrocity, with countless lives once again riding on our ability to anticipate it correctly. President Bush was quite prescient in saying we have to be right every time, but the terrorists only have to be right once. Of course, they already were on September 11, 2001.

To attempt to swat down each attack as it is executed is nothing more than an enormous and needlessly dangerous game of Russian Roulette, especially when the U.S. stupidly handcuffs itself with political correctness by refusing to profile young Muslim male airline passengers. Or young Muslim male "exchange students" who disappear upon entry to the U.S. and turn up everywhere else except the school they were supposedly attending. (Thankfully, Britain is willing to do this and saved lives as a result. And I'll gladly retract the above statements the moment someone, anyone other than a young, Muslim male gets caught trying to blow up a plane or buying 500 cell phones at once or entering a country as a group on the same fraudulent pretense the 9/11 terrorists did.) Defense alone, and lousy defense at that due to the PC cowardice of the defenders, is not enough.

And as for the lunatic liberal approach, forget Russian Roulette. It's just plain suicide. I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or stupidity that makes them honestly believe that if we're just nice enough to mass murderers, they'll just be nice to us. Or that retreat from Iraq, after Bin Laden freely offered that President Clinton's retreat from Mogadishu made them think America weak enough to be attacked on 9/11, would inspire anything but more aggression. (Certainly Israel has gained absolutely nothing from having previously pulled out of Gaza and Lebanon.) Whatever drives that belief, it is simply a risk we cannot afford to take. Too many innocent Americans would get murdered in proving it wrong.

As such, there can be only one proper response to such monstrous behavior – destroy it, as soon as possible, by any means necessary. America has faced only one such similar situation in its history, 61 years ago. Having driven Imperial Japan back as far as its mainland, President Harry Truman faced a difficult decision – invade Japan in conventional fashion, or drop the newly developed atomic bomb? The circumstances he faced and the facts he had on hand mirror today:

• A ferocious enemy with a suicidal mentality (Kamikaze "honor" vs. Jihadist "martyrdom")

• The high risk of civilian casualties (Japan was arming women and children in anticipation of invasion, and atomic radiation obviously makes no distinction; Muslim terrorists use them as walking bombs and hide amongst them regularly)

• The higher number of American casualties likely from pursuing the more conventional route (Japanese invasion; hoping to stop each terrorist plot ahead of time)

• The admittedly horrific possibility of needing to perpetrate near-genocide on the enemy in order to defeat them (Japanese citizens fighting to annihilation for the sake of Samurai honor; Muslim terrorists valuing endless death and "martyrdom" seemingly over all else)

Faced with the two dark choices, Truman elected to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and when Japan unbelievably still hesitated to surrender, on Nagasaki. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese were instantly killed, and the demonstration of American power finally snapped Japan out of its kamikaze mentality, putting a much quicker end to World War II. In this, however, far more lives were saved – the hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Japanese soldiers who would have slaughtered each other in an invasion, and the Japanese people themselves, who would have been all but wiped off the face of planet Earth.

We have come to the same question today. How do we defeat a maniacal enemy that embraces suicide in the perpetration of homicide, and values civilians and children not at all? And might this enemy have to be virtually exterminated if they cannot somehow be forcibly shaken out of that mentality? (The only difference, and it is a major one, would be whether America still has the will and belief in the righteousness of its own cause to see the task through to completion. In 1945, we were as one; in 2006, it's maybe half – if even that. It doesn't augur well for the outcome.) Do we go the more conservative route, or the more high-stakes route? Do we take the course of action few would question or the one many regard as unthinkable?

In short, what would Harry do? And are we willing to do that too? Now, as then, our nation's very future is riding on the answer.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK22. Request permission to publish here.