It seems we have nothing to be alarmed at, except the dire threats of total destruction from terrorist crazies, accompanied by the usual scandals involving key U.S. companies (Boeing), presidential relatives (Neil Bush), pop superstars and other celebrities. You might say it's business-as-usual under the shopping mall regime as we approach the Christmas season.
Rumors of an impending "spectacular" terror attack on the U.S. homeland continue. Since late August these rumors have sprouted wings, and what was once the province of Internet speculation is now the terra firma of mainstream hand wringing. The latest issue of Newsweek suggests that al Qaeda is "building toward" a death-dealing mass attack. Looking at recent terror strikes in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, one counter-terror official told Newsweek, "It's starting to look like this could be the buildup to a grand finale on U.S. soil."
Perhaps this statement can be attributed to nervous exhaustion. An official waits on pins and needles more than two years for the next "big hit," and the hit doesn't come. In his heart he knows the U.S. border is open, that we have many vulnerable targets, and we cannot afford to protect all of them. So the official scratches his head, looks at the rising crescendo of destruction overseas and is choked with fearful anticipation.
Al Qaeda sources are claiming that America will soon be brought to its knees. One al Qaeda spokesman talked of killing 100,000 Americans at one stroke. As reported some weeks back, an Islamist Web site warned Muslims to leave New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. No panic followed, but Newsweek claims that top officials at the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have called the mayors and police chiefs of the three cities in question. "We're asking you to go to a higher state of alert."
Despite warning fatigue, despite the false alarms of the past, the present round of concern is the longest-lasting and deepest that we've seen. It takes a long time to organize a "spectacular" terror event. And perhaps, with time, it becomes easier and easier to believe that such an event isn't coming. The Sept. 11 attacks took years of planning and preparation. So the "big hit," if it ever comes, will take years to plan and implement as well. Meanwhile, many of us begin to dismiss the threat as something long past or overblown.
In terms of higher history, the war has only begun. Muslim fanatics are being taught to hate America at a rate far above present U.S. efforts to kill or capture such people. Add the complicating situation in Iraq, so critical to the overall success of the anti-terror effort. On the U.S. side, comparisons to Vietnam are ill informed. The loss rate in Iraq is nothing compared to that of Vietnam. In that war the terrorists were backed by regular divisions of the North Vietnamese Army, and by the Soviet Union.
The one similarity between the current Iraq effort and the Vietnam War is the American media. The Bush administration receives routine doses of destructive criticism, subtle injections of subversive criticism (disguised as news), and little in the way of constructive criticism. We are led to feel, bit by bit, that U.S. objectives are unattainable, that the costs are too high, that the government is "lying." If the American people take this steady drip, drip, drip to heart, a retreat from the Middle East will occur. Such a turn would spell doom for our friends in the region, while empowering those who hate America in every corner of the world.
The Middle East is not a solid block of people who think alike. There are many shades of opinion in the region, and our involvement there is meant to strengthen our friends at the expense of our enemies. If we left the Middle East tomorrow, the Islamists would only be emboldened. Their stated objective is the conversion of the United States to Islam. Perhaps this has escaped notice, but radical Islam is not a phenomenon limited to a few Middle East countries. So any retreat of U.S. forces would merely shift the center of the action to America. At the same time, the cowering superpower would lose its allies abroad because none would risk standing by a nation that talks itself into running away when the going gets tough.
The logic of America's situation should be clear. If you want to invite further attacks on America's cities, advocate weakness and retreat abroad. It's a surefire formula for the destruction of freedom. And don't think freedom isn't threatened. Consider the recent statement of Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander who led our forces to victory over Saddam earlier this year. Last week Gen. Franks, now retired, told journalists that a successful WMD terror attack against the United States, involving heavy casualties, would change everything. Franks said that following such a strike "this grand experiment we call democracy" would be finished. Franks explained that following a massive WMD strike the American people would question our free and open system, and they would demand restrictions on liberty in order to assure the common defense. This would, inevitably "unravel the fabric of our Constitution." The result would be a military form of government.
A cynic might speculate that Gen. Franks was dreaming a big dream for himself. If America adopted a military dictatorship, perhaps Franks would be the dictator. Thoughts of this kind have been known to swirl in ambitious heads. Setting aside whether this is a pleasant thought for a general or not, we should ask whether the analysis is plausible.
The advent of mass destruction weapons was never good news for democracy. The rationale of dictatorship has always been danger. As danger increases, as stability is threatened, the man on the white horse is looked for. Monarchical, dictatorial powers are often granted to warlords and generals for reasons of safety and security.
Today we see a growing threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. America is no longer safe. Freedom is threatened. If the terrorists are to be stopped, if free institutions are to remain viable in the West, we will need the help of friends in the Middle East. In order to have such friends we must help such friends as we have. And I believe that is what President Bush is trying to do.
