Victor Davis Hanson just says it so well… I’m not even going to try to elaborate.  Read the excerpt below, which summarizes his view (and mine) about the current war against radical Islam:

If you have taught [American] youth for generations that the story of World War II is Hiroshima and the Japanese internment, not Normandy, the Bulge, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, then how can you expect a nation to fight an enemy without making a mistake? And if dropping the bomb on Japan to stop its daily murdering of thousands in its collapsing empire, and to avoid something that would have made the horrific Battle for Berlin look like a cakewalk is equated with the Holocaust, how can the United States marshal the moral authority to press ahead, secure that its killing of jihadists is a different sort from jihadists killing the innocent or each other?

Add into this dangerous modernist soup moral equivalence, or what we know as “conflict resolution theory.” It postulates that any use of force de facto is equivalent to any other. We see those ripples with this Orwellian notion of “proportionality”, that a democratic Israel must calibrate its response to missiles aimed entirely at its civilians by ensuring none of its own aimed at Hezbollah terrorists and their supporters miss…

Relativism is even more pernicious because it is anti-empirical and suspends all moral judgment: Islam is just one of many religions given to excess, not at the heart of the vast majority of killing and fighting now going on in the world at this very hour, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Chechnya to Darfur to the West Bank to Lebanon to the Philippines to Indonesia to India and on and on. A Timothy McVeigh is not much different from an Osama bin Laden; forget the former was solitary and exceptional, the latter with millions of sympathizers and emblematic of an entire global movement. Both by their resort to terror were, presto, relatively the same.

So it is going to be hard, but not impossible, to win this war. Why, then, as readers have complained, my dogged optimism?  For two reasons. One, all these nostrums are theoretical, and anti-empirical. Ultimately as lies, they will be disapproved by the evidence before them. A progressive can call the ACLU all day long, but after 9/11 if he stands in line at an airport gate listening to an imam chanting Allah Akbar as he and his friends board, our liberal friend will begin to worry. And second, our enemies have no intention of relenting. They smell blood and want our carcass, so eventually even the progressive mind will give up the pieties of peace and face the inevitable.

CNN host Glenn Beck criticizes the rest of the Western media, including by implication his own station CNN, for drastically failing to properly report on Islamic extremism. Beck says he decided to show some of the remarkable footage the rest of the mainstream media refuses to show because “Islamic extremism is the biggest threat to our way of life since World War Two and we’ll never be able to fight it if we can’t even see it.”

40 min 55 sec

I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I read a headline from the Guardian newspaper that says “Hopes for peace as Hamas agrees to truce”, it just further convinces me that these folks are used to reading and believing in fairy tales.

Let me refresh your memory by making it clear that Hamas has been consistent with their message: They want to see the destruction of Israel and all of the Jews.  You can water it down as much a you want with the sophistry (translation: “bullshit reasoning”) of lefties such as Jimmy Carter, but the objective is clear.

The fact that Hamas is talking about a ceasefire is a surefire way of knowing that they are in the middle of getting their asses kicked.  The best approach for Israel is to negotiate a ceasefire Iranian-style — i.e., show up at the negotiating table for the next couple of months discussing how you want peace… and in the meantime continue to take out the enemy.