FIGHTING-BACK AGAINST ISLAMOFASCISM IS THE REMEDY, AND DOESN'T MAKE THE ENEMY WORSE

MCCARTHY at NRO's THE CORNER exposes the idiocy of the common claim that Bush and our robust, forward-leaning foreign policy - which includes actually fighting back and counter-attacking with our military - only makes the enemy worse/more popular and makes it easier for them to recruit:

In the decade after we left Saddam Hussein in power rather than deposing him, representatives of the umma responded by bombing the World Trade Center (1993), Khobar (1996), the embassies (1998), the U.S.S. Cole (2000); unsuccessfully plotting to blow up much of Manhattan (1993), a bunch of airliners (1994-95), L.A. Int'l Airport (2000) and the U.S.S. The Sullivans (2000); and finally killing almost 3000 of us in suicide hijackings that destroyed the WTC and damaged the Pentagon.

But [according to the Left and the NYTIMES - reliapundit] it was the Iraq war of 2003 that radicalized them.

It couldn't possibly have been, say, the Koran's Sura 9:5 ("Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.")

The NYTIMES and the doves of the Left - who dominate the MSM and the Democrat Party - are no different than the appeasers of the 1930's who gave into Hitler hoping/believing that they could mollify him and avoid war.

As Churchill said at the time (1938, upon the signing of the Munich Pact - which PM Chamberlain and the MSM described as accomplishing "peace in our time", (paraphrasing): "The appeasers had the choice between dishonor or war; they chose dishonor and soon they shall also have war." Meaning: the peace you attain with the likes of Hitler and jihadomaniacs is fleeting, a mere hudna signed by them merely for temporary gain.

The answer now is the same as the answer in 1938: to truly attain peace we must utterly destroy the enemy, vanquish him. Wipe him out, and wipe their filthy ideology off the face of the earth.