|
COMFORTING THE ENEMY
DEMOCRACY is, by far, the greatest system of government yet created by human genius. The problem is the elections. In a routine presidential contest, the thundering emptiness of the rhetoric from both sides does little lasting harm. Our system is robust. Collectively, the American people are remarkably sensible. But this isnât a normal election year. We are at war. While many domestic issues deserve debate, the War on Terror demands unity of purpose from both parties. It is essential that our enemies understand that weâre united in fighting terrorism. Thatâs not the message weâre sending. While this weekâs "9/11 hearings" on Capitol Hill are useful to a degree, theyâre poorly timed. Both parties hope for political gain, while our paramount goal should be protecting our country. The worst election-year sin is the focus on past errors, real or purported, and the lust to assign blame. Whatâs done is done. We need to concentrate - hard - on the future. Unfortunately, serious thinking about the threat is on hold until November. We need the best that both parties have to offer. Instead, we get the worst. Winning elections trumps defending our citizens. We shall hear no end of claims from both sides that the other party is leading - or would lead - America to disaster. But the terrorist threat will force similar responses from whichever party occupies the White House. Any administration would rapidly (if perhaps painfully) learn the need to fight relentlessly, remorselessly and globally against our terrorist enemies. The War on Terror is not a matter of choice. Danger will dictate our actions. The future wonât conform to the wishful thinking of either the Left or Right. Our tragedy is that, until November, our energies will be devoted to exhuming political corpses, rather than protecting American lives. Both sides will lie. America will suffer. Consider a few implacable - if unpalatable - truths: * There is nothing we can do to satisfy religion-inspired terrorists. If we do not kill them, they will kill us. * The War on Terror cannot be won decisively and will endure beyond our lifetimes. You can no more eliminate terror than you can wipe out crime or drug abuse. But - as with drug abuse and crime - you canât just ignore it, either. The goal is to reduce terrorism to a bearable level. The lack of a final victory doesnât mean the effort is useless or a failure. * We must think, plan and act in terms of decades, not months. Even as we fight todayâs battles, we must think about challenges a generation ahead. * This is a war, not law enforcement. The struggle requires every tool in our national arsenal, from commandos to cops, from diplomacy to technology, from economic sanctions to preemptive war. At different times, in different locations, the instruments of choice will vary. There is no magic solution - or even a set of rules. * The best defense is a strong offense. We cannot wait at home for terrorists to strike. We must not waver from the current policy of taking the war to our enemies. The moment we falter, our enemies will bring the war back to us. * Nothing will make us invulnerable. Our goal is to reduce our vulnerability to the lowest practical level - while balancing wisely between security and freedom. * A terrorist attack on the United States is not a victory for either of our political parties or for any school of thought. Itâs a defeat for all of us. When the next attack occurs - as one eventually will - we must blame our enemies, not each other. * Allies are valuable, but they are not indispensable. In the end, we must always do what is necessary, whether or not it is popular abroad. * The Islamic worldâs problems are not our fault, and we are not to blame for terrorism. We cannot force other cultures to be successful, nor can we avoid their jealousy. * There is only one measure of success that matters in the end: Can terrorists harm the United States and its citizens? While some future strikes are inevitable, the inability of terrorists to strike our homeland since 9/11 is indisputable proof that, however imperfect, our approach to the War on Terror has been working. * Our will must always be stronger than that of our enemies. Otherwise, theyâll win, despite our countless advantages. If we cannot maintain the courage for the fight, the terrorists will fill the courage vacuum. The War on Terror is a zero-sum game. The hearings in Washington are history lessons, at best. But America is about the future - about turning our backs on the past and avoiding the old worldâs obsession with ancient injuries. Instead of savaging one another over what we failed to do yesterday, we must ask what we can do better today and tomorrow. Election-year recriminations over the tragic events of our time serve no one but political hacks and the terrorists themselves. The message our bickering sends to al Qaeda and its sympathizers is that Americans are divided and can be defeated. The terrorists are drawing the - incorrect - lesson that a Democratic victory this November would allow them to regain the global initiative. Although every new administration inevitably makes some mistakes, a Kerry presidency would have to face up to the need to combat terrorism as vigorously as the Bush administration has done. The man in the Oval Office doesnât get a choice on this one. But the terrorists read things otherwise, thanks to our public venom. Theyâll attempt to strike here, as they did in Spain, to influence our elections. If they succeed, both of our political parties, with their craven bickering, will be guilty of inciting our enemies. We Americans may disagree about many issues, but we cannot afford disunity in the face of fanatical killers. Nor are we remotely as divided as our enemies are led to believe. The problem is the politicians, not the people. Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." Posted by: tipper 2004-03-25 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=29046 |