This election may be the most important in living memory. I believe that it is the most important since 1864, when the voters of the North were asked to choose between the folksy Republican who had led them through three years of war and a Democratic “war hero” whose election would almost certainly lead to capitulation and defeat. There were two sides in 1864: patriots, who were willing to save the Union regardless of the cost, and traitors, who were willing to lose the war for ideological reasons. The same is true today.

Let us understand the cause for which we are fighting. The enemy is both like and unlike any other which America has ever faced: like our foes of the past, the Islamist hates the West and seeks to establish a totally new world order. Unlike our other enemies, the Islamist lurks on the periphery, fighting by dishonourable but effective means. They have no armies of tanks, no fleets of Aircraft Carriers, no armadas of bombers: yet the danger posed by this enemy is the greatest that America has ever faced.

Consider, for a moment, what it would mean if a single nuclear bomb went off in a single American city. What would the effects be? Would any form of Constitutional government even survive? Would it if, instead of one bomb, it were five? How would American society cope with a Smallpox plague that killed millions?

The Democrats assume that such suggestions are an exaggeration, a ploy to scare Americans. John F. Kerry assures us that the terrorist threat is, “exaggerated.” But is it? If I’d told you, on September 10th, 2001 that terrorists were going to hijack civilian planes and crash them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, what would you have said? A single nuclear bomb, in the right place, could kill hundreds of thousands, wound millions, and cost the American economy trillions of dollars. In one second everything could change.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not because our enemies are irrational or insane. They have very good reasons to believe that a nuclear attack on America would be successful.

Suppose that al-Qaeda destroyed New York City tomorrow. What would the nation retaliate against? Perhaps a few tactical nuclear weapons could be used against suspected terrorist sites: perhaps. But, because al-Qaeda controls no countries, any form of retaliation which would serve as a deterrent is problematic at best. While, logically, it would make sense to respond to any nuclear attack on the United States with an all-out nuclear assault on any target with the slightest connection to the terrorists, does such a course seem likely?

The fundamental Islamist strategic concept in the war on America is this: America values life more than they do. This means two things: first, that the United States is prevented from retaliating reciprocally for most of their outrages and that, second, Americans will do almost anything to avoid sustaining losses.

Early on, al-Qaeda made a basic calculation: kill enough Americans, and the United States will leave the Islamists to do as they like. Osama Bin Laden came to this conclusion when, after the “Blackhawk Down” incident, President Clinton ordered the withdrawal of all US troops from Somalia: kick the Americans and their leaders will run.

Given this, the campaign launched by al-Qaeda through the 1990’s makes perfect sense. The series of escalating outrages were designed with a single purpose: to convince the American people that the price in blood was not worth standing in the way of an Islamist takeover of the Middle East. Each attack escalated in severity: right up until 9-11.

At the present moment, al-Qaeda’s war is directed at driving President Bush from office: an event which would vindicate their strategic theory. That is because a vote against President Bush this November will, in effect, be a vote against the War on Terrorism (whatever silly motivation happens to be in the mind of each Democratic and Third Party voter is largely irrelevant). Our enemies would see the defeat of President Bush as a rejection of the forward strategy of fighting terror.

Like George McClellan in 1864, the Democratic Party today officially maintains that it has a plan for fighting terror while, with a wink and nod; they let everyone know that they mean to do no such thing. The Democrats of one hundred and forty years ago called for peace convention to restore the Union when virtually everyone knew that it would result in exactly the opposite: permanent disunion. Similarly, modern Democrats occasionally try to talk though about terrorism, but lack any plans for actually doing anything about it (aside, of course from “consulting with our allies”).

Democrats seem to be seized by the strange notion that Clinton’s policies for “fighting terrorism” were just fine and will work well if re-implemented. This seems to be based largely on the specious theory that, “well, no 9-11 happened when Clinton was President, so everything must have been ok.” A vote for the Democrats means more terrorist attacks on America, more orphans, more bereaved families. Maybe millions of them. If a Democrat is elected President, the odds of a major attack on America go up seriously for two reasons: the pressure on al-Qaeda will decrease and the leadership of that group will, given that the War on Terrorism resulted in the defeat of Bush, come to the conclusion that another major terror attack will push the United States to let up altogether.

After all, were there a nuclear attack (and one might happen no matter what we do), no one had any idea what will happen next. It is possible that the United States will lash out in vengeance but is it not also possible that, especially with the right leader, the nation might decide simply to throw up their hands, meet the short-term demands of al-Qaeda, and kick the rest of the problem to a future Administration? I can easily see such a thing happening: a nuclear attack is followed by a major increase in homeland defense efforts, combined with a withdrawal of troops abroad needed to “defend the homeland.” A single retaliatory nuclear attack is launched to cover the President politically (“he used nuclear weapons,” Democratic pundits will shout, “what more do you want!”). As part of a program for “energy independence” the United States then cuts free the Islamic world, and under some other pretext, Israel as well. The Islamists have enough people in their own region to kill to keep them busy for years.

Naturally such approach would guarantee even more problems in the long run, but I’ve never known Democrats to think much about that. Liberals simply believe that marrying buggery partners is much more important that fighting murderers and thugs who seek to kill millions of Americans.

There is only one way to defeat the terrorists, as I’ve explained many times before. We must, as Lincoln once said of the Civil War, bring ourselves to grasp the mathematics of the situation. In any society there are only a limited number of people who are willing to knowingly commit suicide for any cause. The number willing to do so in a losing cause is even less than that.

Look at the experience of Japan in the Second World War. While, in battle, organized units of Japanese were willing to, essentially, commit mass suicide in battles- the number who were willing to volunteer to be kamikazes was actually rather small, given the size of Japan’s population. Similarly, despite lavish subsidies, the Palestinians have managed to (at the most) recruit only a few hundred suicide bombers from a population of millions. In both the cases of the Japanese and Palestinians these efforts were aided by a state apparatus which dwarfs anything that al-Qaeda possesses.

In other words, al-Qaeda operatives are extremely valuable and difficult to replace assets. For this reason, the method for defeating them is obvious: we must take and hold ground for which they will fight and give their lives. We have done this in both Iraq and Afghanistan. No reliable account exists of how many terrorists have fallen in these campaigns but, based on the numbers of prisoners taken, I reckon that it must be in the thousands. Each al-Qaeda member who is killed in the sands of Mesopotamia is unavailable for action elsewhere. Every terrorist we kill in Baghdad is one who won’t be able to kill in Boston.

The last two and a half years have put al-Qaeda on the defensive. Contrary to the claims of some on the left, their recruitment is down in this time. In fact, according to its own leaders, it peaked right after 9-11. There’s good reason for that: murderous killers don’t want to join a losing team. Even during the great Afghan Jihad, no so mythologized, most of the rich Moslems who rushed off to join in the war did little more than fire their weapons into the air a few times and then head home. The Islamists are incapable of action without the support of the local population, something they plainly lack in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If they Iraqi people were so eager to fight the Americans, al-Qaeda wouldn’t be killing hundreds of them in car bombings. The fact that al-Qaeda has resorted to such tactics there indicates that they are desperate and lashing out- and that their efforts to stir up an authentic insurrection have failed.

Take that pressure off and let al-Qaeda get a few shots away: what happens? People flock to the banner of Jihad. The years of the Bush Administration become the Islamists’ Valley Forge, a difficult and nearly impossible ordeal that they endured. Much of the world will interpret the defeat of the President as a victory for al-Qaeda.

President Bush has been willing to sacrifice some of his domestic priorities to fight and win this war. Franklin Roosevelt did the same during the Second World War. It is right and just that a President should do so. Some Republicans howl about this, but in truth it is necessary. A President at war must pick their battles carefully.

That is the problem with the Democratic Party today (as it was in 1864), they are so determined to advance their political goals that they are willing to sacrifice the security of the nation. When I say this, I am not referring to the hate-America left. If Nazi Germany were to magically resurface, they would praise Hitler for his anti-smoking and gun control initiatives, as well as how he managed to, “provide free health care for every Aryan.” I’m talking about the mainstream of the Democratic Party. They are the real danger, for they are the ones with the votes.

Any look at exit polls, any look at the speeches of the candidates, shows one thing: they don’t take this war seriously. They’re more worried about “jobs” than they are about killers planning on murdering them with nuclear bombs. They are a danger because they are unaware of the threat their attitudes pose to America. They don’t hate America, but they don’t quite love it either. It is a fact they live with.

That is the choice that must be made this November: between a party which takes the terrorist threat seriously and is prepared to fight it to the point of sacrificing many things they want, and between a party whose adherents place their own individual issues take precedence over the security of the nation. In short, this election is a choice between patriotism and treason.