Earlier prescient advice from the anti-American crowd has included: dismantling government intelligence agencies "brick by brick"; toppling the Shah of Iran and giving Islamic fundamentalism its first real foothold in the Mideast; turning the U.S. armed forces into a feminist consciousness-raising session; demanding continued dependence on Arab oil in order to preserve mud flats in Alaska; indignantly opposing a missile defense shield; promoting endless due process rights for aliens who are illegal, diseased or criminal; disarming the public; and purging the nation of insidious references to God.
Most people would be embarrassed at a track record like that, especially after Sept. 11. But instead of hanging their heads in shame, liberals have boldly returned to their typical hysteria and defeatism.
We keep getting breathless reports on the indefatigable Taliban forces and fearsome Afghan terrain. Liberals have to suppress their glee at possible failure, so instead they post droll rambling narratives on the nation's op-ed pages with no apparent point. Liberals write essays like little kids making up a melody. They meander along, issuing implicitly contradictory snide remarks about Bush, until they run out of energy and finally conclude with some incongruous, throaty peroration.
But the general theme is: We're going to lose. This thought perks up liberals because it reminds them of their favorite war -- Vietnam. They are only disconsolate when America wins wars.
I don't know. Have liberals seen our guys? Engaging in mind-boggling acts of heroism makes our brave servicemen happy. Camel-riding nomads may excel at the sucker punch, but wait until they see Western Civilization's response. As pilot "Elvis" said on MSNBC the other night, "We'll do the job." So I wouldn't worry too much about the redoubtable Taliban forces. We're sending in men, not Washington Post columnists.
The New York Times has tried to put a happy face on the sudden resurgence of military men -- both of which are deeply detested at the Times -- by recasting support for the military as a general enthusiasm for all federal government programs. "Here was a Republican president," the Times insanely exulted, "repeatedly extolling the crucial role of the federal government in providing for the safety of the American people."