The War on Terror has brought on many complex problems and challenges. Perhaps none is more critical than the conduct of the political Left which is apparently set on sabotaging our efforts. Unable to come up with a logical explanation, political observers either throw up their hands in bewilderment or ascribe the Left's posture to some irrational nihilistic impulse. But such conclusions are neither satisfactory nor correct.

The Left's sabotage of this war is a deliberate attempt to give relief to the other side. This is because their corresponding views on capitalism and the West make Islamic radicals and the Left natural allies. The Left seeks to weaken us from within in order to help those whose shared worldview binds them in a common pact. Once we understand the nature of this stealth partnership, the reasons behind the Left's often seemingly inexplicable actions will become alarmingly apparent.

But to do so, we must start at the beginning.

For reasons we need not go into here, some people in capitalism develop an aversion toward it. Needless to say, it can be seen and felt in many places — at anti—establishment rallies, globalization protests, in the ranks of our cultural and intellectual elites, among radical activists, and the movies of Michael Moore to mention just a few — where capitalism is spoken of as evil, exploitative, alienating, dehumanizing and such.

This hatred gives rise to the urge to strike out. On the crudest level, it is expressed as violence against capitalism's symbols and institutions such as financial centers and corporations. The efforts to institutionalize capitalism—adverse policies are a more sophisticated manifestation of this impulse. Some of the more obvious ones are regulatory restrictions on the free market, the expansion of the state and the shackling of the private sector. It goes without saying that the possessors of this anti—capitalist outlook invariably congregate on the political Left.

The Left's dislike of capitalism naturally extends to the whole of Western civilization as the two are indelibly and inextricably tied. Capitalism was, of course, born in the West and in time came to constitute its socio—economic foundation. Besides being its cradle, the West has also been capitalism's leading practitioner and long—term champion.

In the Left's worldview, then, the two great villains on this earth are capitalism and the West. As such, they need to be brought down and taken out of existence, which is precisely what the western Left has been trying to accomplish for the past one hundred years or so.

Its first great hope was the Soviet Union; naturally so, since the Soviet worldview closely coincided with its own. To begin with, the Soviets were virulently anti—capitalistic. Castigating capitalism as an unjust and exploitative system that had corrupted the whole of the Western world, they insisted that it was to be swept away as a matter of historical law. This, of course, was music to the Left's ears.

Most importantly, the Soviets possessed the means and willingness to help those historical laws along. Belligerent and heavily—armed, they were openly preparing for that decisive confrontation that would push the West with its bourgeois culture into the abyss of the past. The result was the Cold war, an epic clash between two diametrically opposed socio—economic orders — Western democratic liberalism and communist totalitarianism.

Never in doubt where they stood, the Left tried to tip the scales in the Soviets' favor by weakening the West from within. Their strategy was twofold: To dull the West's fighting spirit and to undercut its military power. To affect the former, they professed that the Cold War was un—winnable, as it would only lead to mankind's annihilation. It was therefore better not to fight than to be destroyed — hence the well—known slogan 'better red than dead.' They even hinted that to be taken over would not have been so undesirable, as the Soviet love for the common man made their system more humane than ours, based as it is on greed and selfishness.

To render us ineffective militarily, they strenuously opposed any effort to increase our strength or preparedness. Claiming it would only provoke the other side to an all—out nuclear confrontation, they eagerly advocated military cuts in order to demonstrate good will. Some went so far as to propose unilateral disarmament. This was, of course, precisely what the ever—aggressive Soviets were hoping for.

Sensing the Soviets were being outplayed, the Left became outright hysterical when Ronald Reagan strategically placed nuclear warheads in several European countries. They organized a wave of peace protests where they sought to whip up popular hysteria by predicting an imminent nuclear Armageddon. Claiming that the move was a needless provocation, they urged the U.S. to withdraw. America, however, stood its ground and stared down both the threats of the Soviet government and the demands of the peaceniks. As the architect of this stratagem and the West's leader in the struggle against communism, Ronald Reagan was the Left's most hated man. The Left's hatred of Reagan was in sharp contrast with its fondness for Mikhail Gorbachev, a life—long communist and a former party apparatchik.

Knowing full well that the martial power ultimately decides the outcome of all great conflicts — be it between nations or civilizations — the Left appropriated the peace movement as its most important weapon. Whether overtly employed or not, the side with the stronger military invariably triumphs, which is precisely why the Left so vigorously opposed ours. Hiding their real intent behind the rhetoric of high ideals, they wielded the peace movement as a ploy with which they sought to bring about our defeat.

In the end, our military superiority carried the day. The Soviets just could not keep up with Reagan's build—up and his plans for the prohibitively expensive 'Star Wars' proved to be the straw that broke their back. Despite throwing everything they had into the arms race, their inefficient centrally—planned economies were unable to pay the bills and their system felt apart.

The disintegration of the communist block was a painful setback for the Left's hopes and aspirations. Although its loathing of capitalism and the West continued unabated, there was no one — at least for the time being — capable of taking them on.

This changed dramatically on September 11, 2001 when Islamic radicals burst on the scene in a spectacular fashion. Their attack and subsequent statements left no doubt about their goal — the annihilation of Western civilization. And like communists before them, they see capitalism as the source of our evil which is something their choice of target made painfully clear.

September 11 electrified the Left. More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was once again someone whose thinking about the West and capitalism agreed with its own. Most importantly, Islamists possessed the will and capability to destabilize or perhaps even bring down the object of their hate.

Sensing the opportunity, the Left immediately sprang to action. The first order of business was to dampen the retaliatory wrath of the United States. The effort was already underway on September 12 when a missive appeared on a popular leftist website urging restraint in responding to the attack.

Since then the Left has done everything it could to undermine our efforts in the War on Terror. Because of its crucial importance, opposition to the American military is once again their rallying cry. Portraying it as an instrument of domination and our troops as reprobates, they try to discredit it in the public's eyes. Complaining of its bad image, they themselves do all they can to blacken it. After the Abu Ghraib photos became public, The New York Times kept the incident on its front page for nearly three months. Senator Kennedy reminded the world of it a year later from the floor of the Senate when he lamented the 'first anniversary of Abu Ghraib.' Senator Durbin compared our treatment of captured terrorists at Guant疣amo Bay to the way prisoners were treated by Nazis.

Is it any surprise that Al—Jazeera regularly and approvingly quotes the left—leaning American media and liberal politicians? Kennedy's and Durbin's statements were broadcast hundreds of times, giving a compelling boost to arguments for jihad against America. Coming as it were from the horse's mouth, they proved far more effective than anything Islamists themselves could ever say.

Sapping our troops' morale by criminalizing their legitimate combat actions, those on the Left seek to extend full constitutional rights and protections to foreign—born terrorists. Always concerned about the rights of captured jihadists, they gleefully keep track of the American body count and cheer when it reaches milestone numbers. Chastising and defaming those who risk their lives to defend us, they protect and root for those who want to destroy us.

They call those who plot against us freedom fighters comparable to America's founding fathers. Claiming we can never win, they advocate withdrawal from the battlefield. They do not want us to beat back the ruthless foe whose objective is our destruction. Rather they wish to shield him from our power and wrath so that he can accomplish his avowed purpose.

The man who spearheads our efforts is the Left's most loathed man. His effectiveness has drawn hatred so excessively visceral and vindictive as to be unequalled in modern times. Anathema in the Left's eyes, he has been called Hitler, an outlaw, a murderer and worse. Needless to say, the Left is doing all it can to impugn and shackle George W. Bush as he champions our cause in this conflict.

Once again the Left has turned to the peace movement as its weapon of choice. The idea is the same as it has always been — to checkmate our military to make it possible for the enemy to prevail. A civilization is only viable only insofar as it can defend itself. The Left's peace campaign is a stratagem for our defeat. To go along with its demands would make us an easy target for our enemies. Any civilization that wants to survive must be able to protect itself and for that it needs a strong and effective military. Pacifism in the face of a determined adversary is always fatal. The Left knows it, which is why it advocates it.

***

Many people have been having lingering suspicions of the Left's treachery which have not yet grown into a full conviction, because they were unable to conceive that there could be some in our midst wishing for our defeat.

Most of us would like to believe that the Left's apparent sabotage of our war effort is not intentional. We would prefer to think that the Left is sincere, if badly misguided. But the evidence points to the contrary. The Left's pacifism can be used as one of many examples. It only extends to the exercise of our military power while our belligerent enemies — be it the expansionistic Soviets or murderous Islamists — invariably get a pass. Contradictions such as this reveal the Left's true agenda which is not what they say it is, peace in this instance, but our defeat.

The current unwillingness of most European governments to join the war effort is a case in point. More than one hundred years of socialist activism has produced a hardened Left which by now controls most of their institutions and bureaucracies. Having developed a form of governance which should be properly called 'soft socialism,' those in charge are intrinsically hostile to the West and its capitalistic foundation and as such disinclined to rise in their defense. Rather, if given the chance, they will help the other side. Semi—socialistic France, for example, does this habitually. Its passing of highly classified American information to Saddam Hussein in the run—up to the war is one of the more egregious examples.

Is it, then, so unexpected that European governing elites are so transparently accommodating toward Iran in its bid to develop nuclear weapons? Belligerently anti—western, the damage Iran could inflict with such weaponry could seriously destabilize if not throw into disarray the already shaky West. This is why the Left is so frantically keen on leaving Iran unmolested while chastising the U.S. for advocating measures to check this growing threat.

The Left's treachery accounts for why four years after September 11 most western nations are not only unwilling to confront the enemy who openly calls for their destruction, but impugn the one country disposed to do something about it. The fate of the West is in America's hands, but it gets little thanks from those whose survival it defends.

In this conflict, as in all others, the Left disingenuously calls for tolerance, understanding and dialogue while condemning tough measures which alone can safeguard our continued existence. In this it follows its traditional modus operandi of wrapping its stealth agendas in the cloak of high—flown rhetoric. Sadly, it has succeeded in duping many well—intentioned people into assisting an adversary whose implacable hatred can only be quenched by our eradication.

The depth and extent of the Left's deceit will become clear once it is understood how their shared views on our society make them a stealth ally of Islamic radicals. The treachery must be exposed, because this war on terror — hard and protracted as it promises to be — cannot be won with a fifth column in our midst.

Vasko Kohlmayer defected from Communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He lives in London and works in the publishing industry. He can be contacted at vasko_kohlmayer@msn.com.