Were They Safer Then

The Sineman asks, "3 1/2 years later, are we safer now"?

We're 5 years into Bush's War on Terror as some like to call it. Others call it the struggle against radical Islam. Call it what you may, it's going to last a while longer. Some say 20 years. Some say 50 (BBC).

So, go ahead and answer Sineman's question to yourself, honestly, using whatever logic you choose. I'll not debate your reasoning or your answer. What I would like to do is, by way of example, help put your answer in perspective. Let's pretend the War on Terror will last 20 years. That means we're 1/4 of the way through.

How would Londoners have answered the question "are we safer today?" 1/4 of the way through WWII? In say, Fall/Early-Winter of 1940? Not sure? Read up on The Blitz. Oh, and Italy invaded British controlled Egypt in September 1940 also. Not exactly glorious days.

Further back, the American Civil War, how was that going about 1/4 of the way through? Did you ever wonder why the Confederates had Lee in command and the Union had McClellan then Burnside then Hooker and then Meade? Well, lets just say things weren't going so well for the Union. About a year after the start of the war, the Battle of Shiloh was fought. Casualties, 23,741 (13,047 USA, 10,694 CSA). Numbers like that redefine the word safe as we use it in modern times.

On a larger scale, imagining the struggle against radical Islam runs on for 50 years...that means we're 1/10th of the way through. Ugh. How would people in North America or Western Europe have answered Sineman's question in the 1955-1965 timeframe? They might have mentioned things like the Warsaw Pact, Mutually Assured Destruction, The Bay of Pigs Invasion, and The Cuban Missile Crisis. Or even The Bomber Gap, The Missile Gap, or Duck and Cover (Google Video).

The whole point is, take sineman's question seriously. Answer it honestly. Then, put your answer in perspective.