Change In America

(What Will We Become?)

In our fight against terrorism there are two basic tenets of war that must be considered. One, in a contest between a conventional army and a guerilla army, the guerilla army almost always prevails. And two, to defeat an enemy who is willing to die for what he believes in, you must be willing to die for what you believe in. These truths apply to our war on terrorism just as surely as they have in any war at any time in the past. Unfortunately, I believe we in this country have forgotten these two truths. Let us look at each in turn.

Recent history has many examples of the truth of the first concept. First the French and then the American conventional armies were defeated inViet Nam, the Soviets lost to the muhajadin in Afganistan, the African continent has been pockmarked by guerilla warfare with many of the contests still undecided despite years of conflict and billions in aid from the major global players. Central and South American have had little success in eradicating the guerilla style forces of drug producers and smugglers, despite substantial support of American money and advisers. Going back a bit further, in our fight for independence from the British we had a standing army that fought bravely with the help of our European allies, but it was the guerilla fighters, the strike-and-fade-into-the-forest warriors that were a vital part of our victory. And there was nothing the British commanders could do about it.

I am not saying that a conventional force cannot defeat a guerilla force. To do so though requires the conventional army to apply sufficient forces to completely surround and occupy the territory being contested, completely close off the supply chains and squeeze the rebel army out of existence. To bring that level of force to bear is nearly impossible in an area as large as a small sized country. We have had a fair measure of success in Afganistan in rooting out the power base of the Al Quada, but, as we are learning, many of their members have escaped to surrounding countries, and others still continue to fight in the mountains or from across national boundries. Nor have we had any success in affecting their other bases of power around the world. They continue to attack soft targets in many different countries at will.

We must recognize that the battleground of our war on terrorism is global. There is absolutely no way we can field sufficient force to eradicate the terrorist elements that threaten us. Cells of radicals will continue to spring up. Even if we were to democratize the whole of the Middle East we would find, as many African nations have in the last fifty years, that internal groups will still have the ability to form and operate. To take the idea to the extreme, we could take control of the entire planet, and still find ourselves infested with turmoil. The threat would not disappear, the definition of the problem would just change. It would no longer be a foreign threat, but an internal one. Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Joself Stalin, creators of some of the most oppressive police states the world has ever seen have been beset with at times very effective, very costly, internal dissent. Could we hope to do any better and still maintain a society based on freedom and civil liberty?

One very important fact is that guerilla armies succeed because they are supported by the population they act among or for. What they say may have nothing to do with why they are really in power. That does not matter. If the people believe the warriors are acting on their behalf they will give their support.

The second tenet ties closely with the first. We cannot hope to defeat this threat, and still maintain this republic of freedom and liberty unless we the public are will to make a great sacrifice ourselves. This is not a war that wil be decided on a set battlefield as the two World Wars were. This war is, as I have said, global. It may be fought in Afganistan, or Iraq, but it will also be fought in OUR cities, OUR streets. It has already visited New York city. It will visit more.

It must be understood that I have the greatest respect for those who have gone overseas to bring the fight to the enemy. They will lay down their lives to protect our rights and freedoms. Nor am I disparaging the recognition of our government that they must make an effort to make our lives and our homes safer. We must look at this matter in a rational manner though. We cannot pretend that those efforts will eliminate any threat here in our country. To destroy the power bases of some terrorist in the Middle East will not eliminate all their bases of power. To kill or capture the leaders of one group will not prevent others from taking their place, or prevent other groups from forming and acting. Terrorism is a hydra with a thousands heads. It will not be easily slain.

I applaud some of the efforts of our elected officials in their efforts to prevent further bloodshed on our soil. Those efforts have certainly made it much more difficult to attack our vulnerable infrastructure. It is an effort though that can never be totally successful. I can make my point with one simple observation. Much has been done to seal our borders against the entry of terrorists and their weapons, and yet I have not heard that we have won the war on drugs. The connection? Hundreds of tons of drugs from Central and South America entered our country before 911. If we have managed to totally seal our borders against the entry the threat of terrorists, it would seem to follow that no other threat can pass. If, on the other hand, tons of drugs can still leak through the wall of security we have thrown up, cannot tons of other threats also pass. A recent news report indicated that since 911 Canadian marijuana has become popular and, apparently, is readily available in many places around the nation.

How then are we to combat the threat of terrorism? Can we, in fact, wrap our society so securely that no threat can reach us? I would suggest we cannot. It is true that we can take reasonable precautions that will make the threat less likely. We have taken many, and they have worked well to date. There are probably others that we have not yet adopted that will make us safer still. What we must decide is how much we are willing to give up to give us that added sense of security. Remember, total security is not possible. The most oppresive police states have not been able to eliminate all threats to themselves. What then can we do?

The answer is not an easy one. It comes back to the second tenet I proposed. The intent of the terrorist, as it has been reported to us, is to destroy the American way of life, in effect to destroy the belief system that drives American culture, religion and business. Their intent is not to destroy our buildings and bridges, to burn our homes, or defile our national parks. It is true that they destroyed two magnificent buildings, but those buildings could be rebuilt, and I think the terrorists realize that. Those buildings were the target because they were a symbol of capitalism, of a growing global commerse. It was the symbol they attacked. It was our beliefs they hoped to destroy.

Belief can be a powerful thing. Our belief in freedom has created a nation that has been a standard, the envy, of the rest of the enlightened world. Our beliefs in our bilities have brought prosperity to ourselves and much of the rest of the planet. Our belief in democracy has spread. It has solidified some shaky new democracies, and created others. It has given us the ability to go anywhere on the planet in less than a day, and has taken men to the Moon. We have come to believe that if we believe a thing is possible then it is so. Unfortunately, that is not true. We cannot be totally secure in this new age of terrorism just because we believe it. Nor can we win by giving up what we are in the attempt.

Belief can be a very fragile thing. It can change over the course of generations, and be destroyed overnight. We once believed that slavery was proper, and that all immigrants to this country should shed their heritage. Now slavery is gone and multiculturalism is the standard of the land. More to the point we once believed in free speech, and the standard of due process. Now, with the passage of the U.S. Patriot Act and the accompanying paranoia, a citizen may be regarded as a enemy of the state for their words, and due process no longer applies if you, YOU, can be viewed in any way as a supporter of terrorism.

A very simple example is the new law governing pilot's licenses. If a report is received that any pilot of this country poses a threat to national security their license can be revoked. There is no need for the revoking agency to prove that threat. The burden of proof now lies with the pilot. They must file the paperwork, and make the effort to prove that they are innocent. Could you prove that you have never supported a terrorist effort? Unlikely, even though you are as pure as fresh snow. You cannot prove a negative. One can only assume that the report necessary to cause the revocation must be a credible one.

The greatest failure of our government, our elected officials, was their attempt to convince us that we could be made safe. I never heard a word about feeding the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, meaning people outside the military. I never heard a word about us all being combatants in this war. They spoke about sending our armed forces to fight this threat, and we have done so. The war though is not somewhere else, only some of the battles are. Some will be fought on our soil, and there is a possibility that more blood will be spilled in our streets.

We have already given up much in our leaders efforts to make our lives safe? What we must decide is how much more we are going to surrender, how many more rights we are going to give up in an effort to create a security that can never be complete. You will notice that I did not say that we would 'lose' these rights. To lose a thing implies that someone is taking it from us. It is our decision about how much we shall give up. Many municipalities and states across the nation have passed resolutions stating their belief that our elected officials at the national level have already given away too much. It is our decision in what we will give away. It is our decision in what we will keep. The threat exists. That cannot be denied. We are engaged in a type of war the U.S. has never known, one that comes into OUR homes. What we must decide is whether we are willing to die for what we believe in. Or whether the other side has already destroyed a part of what it is to be American, and whether we are going to give them that victory.. If we do not demand a return of our civil liberties then the terrorist have already won the first battle. How many more we are going to give them?