Mark Steyns recent column in the Telegraph started me along a certain line of thought. The good meaty bits first...
A neighbour of mine refuses to let her boy play with "militaristic" toys. So when a friend gave the l'il tyke a plastic sword and shield, mom mulled it over and then took away the former and allowed him to keep the latter. And for a while, on my drive down to town, I'd pass Junior in the yard playing with his shield, mastering the art of cowering more effectively against unseen blows.
That's how the "peace" crowd thinks the West should fight terrorism: eschew the sword, but keep the shield if you absolutely have to.
That truly is the thought process of capitulation. By denying yourself the sword you deny yourself any true defense. The shield is a false security blanket. All it can do is lessen the effect of single attacks, but if you have no means of stopping the attacks, the best shield in the world will eventually weaken and break. Even worse, by accepting the shield you are accepting the fact that you WILL be attacked. Otherwise there would be no need for the shield at all. France has been cowering behind a shield for far too long, and maybe it we should accept some of the blame for that. America has been the shield for Europe for too long. Our presence in Europe has allowed some countries to ignore their own defense and spend their budgets on "socialist welfare" systems, which are beginning to show that they aren't working.
The EU is supposedly starting to marshell their own supra-national fighting force, but no one knows what reason they need one for. Supporters argue that a EU force could have been used in Serbia and Bosnia. Critics say that EU countries were represented in the Nato and UN involvements in those countries, and point out how badly that turned out.
"Never again" as Steyn opines is becoming "Neville again". And let us all hope that Spain finds it's inner Churchill to counter it's current Chamberlain tendencies.