Mark Steyn: 'Long war' is breaking down into tedium

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 03/05/06 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

I had to sign a tedious business contract the other day. They wanted my corporation number -- fair enough -- plus my Social Security number -- well, if you insist -- and also my driver's license number -- hang on, what's the deal with that?

Well, we e-mailed over a query and they e-mailed back that it was a requirement of the Patriot Act. So we asked where exactly in the Patriot Act could this particular requirement be found and, after a bit of a delay, we got an answer.

And on discovering that there was no mention of driver's licenses in that particular subsection, I wrote back that we have a policy of reporting all erroneous invocations of the Patriot Act to the Department of Homeland Security on the grounds that such invocations weaken the rationale for the act, and thereby undermine public support for genuine anti-terrorism measures and thus constitute a threat to America's national security.

And about 10 minutes after that the guy sent back an e-mail saying he didn't need the driver's license number after all.

I'd be interested to know how much of this bureaucratic opportunism is going on. A couple of weeks earlier, I went to the bank to deposit a U.S. dollar check drawn on a Canadian financial institution, and the clerk announced that for security reasons checks drawn on Canadian banks now had to be sent away for collection and I'd have access to the funds in a couple of weeks. This was, she explained, a requirement of -- ta-da -- the Patriot Act. And, amazingly, that turned out not to be anywhere in the act either.

Any day now, my little girl will wake up, look under the pillow and find a note from the Tooth Fairy explaining that before processing of financial remuneration for said tooth can commence, the Patriot Act requires the petitioning child to supply a federal taxpayer identification number and computer-readable photo card with retinal scan.

I don't have a problem with the Patriot Act per se, so much as the awesome powers claimed on its behalf by everybody from car salesmen to the agriculture official who demanded proof from my maple-sugaring neighbor that his sap lines were secure against terrorism. Which is a hard thing to prove. You may think you've secured them against terrorism, and one morning you wake up to a loud explosion and the TV's showing breaking news of people howling in agony as boiling syrup rains down from the skies. Apparently, there's a big problem with al-Qaida putting anthrax in the maple supply. You don't notice it on your pancake because it blends in with the confectioners' sugar.

My worry is that on the home front the war is falling prey to lack-of-mission creep -- that, in the absence of any real urgency and direction, the "long war" (to use the administration's new and unsatisfactory term) is degenerating into nothing but bureaucratic tedium, media doom-mongering and erratic ad hoc oppositionism. To be sure, all these have been present since Day One: The press have been insisting Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war for three years and yet, despite the urgings of CNN and the BBC, those layabout Iraqis stubbornly refuse to get on with it. They're happy to teeter for another three years, no matter how many "experts" stamp their foot and pout their lips and say "I want my civil war now." The New York Times ran a headline after the big bombing: "More Clashes Shake Iraq; Political Talks Are In Ruins." The "political talks" resumed the day after publication. The "ruins" were rebuilt after 48 hours.

The quagmire isn't in Iraq but at home. For five years, beginning with the designation of "war on terror," the president's public presentation has been consistent: Islam is a great religion, religion of peace, marvelous stuff, White House Ramadan Banquet the highlight of the calendar, but, sadly, every barrel has one or two bad apples, even Islam believe it or not, and once we've hunted those down we'll join the newly liberated peace-loving Muslim democracies in a global alliance of peace-loving peaceful persons. Most sentient beings have been aware that there is, to put it mildly, a large element of evasion about this basic narrative, but only now is it being explicitly rejected by all sides. William F. Buckley and George Will have more or less respectfully detached themselves from the insane idealism of shoving liberty and democracy down people's throats whether they want it or not. And, on the ports deal with Dubai, a number of other commentators I respect plus a stampede of largely ignorant weathervane pols have denounced the administration for endangering American security on the eastern seaboard. I can't see that: The only change is that instead of being American stevedores employed by a British company they'll now be American stevedores employed by a United Arab Emirates company.

But what I find interesting is the underlying argument: At heart, what Hillary Clinton and Co. are doing is dismissing as a Bush fiction the idea of "friendly" Arab "allies" in the war of terror. They're not necessarily wrong. Even the "friendliest" Arab regimes tend to be a bunch of duplicitous shysters: King Hussein sided with Saddam in the Gulf war, Mubarak and the House of Saud are the cause of much of our present woes. I would be perfectly prepared to consider a raft of measures insisting that, for the duration of the war, there'll be restrictions on access to the United States by certain countries. As I've argued for some years, it's absurd that the Saudis are allowed to continue with their financial and ideological subversion of everything from American think-tanks to mosques to prison chaplaincy programs (and, I'll bet, without providing driver's license numbers).

However, I think we should do that as a conscious policy decision, rather than as reflex piecemeal oppositionism. What Democrats seem to be doing with Dubai Ports World, whether they realize it or not, is tapping in to a general public skepticism (to put it politely) about the entire Muslim world. In that sense, the ports deal is the American equivalent of the Danish cartoon jihad: increasing numbers of Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate." So what? There were millions of "moderate" Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them.

Despite being portrayed as a swaggering arrogant neocon warmongering cowboy, President Bush has, in fact, been circumspect to a fault for five years. But the equivocal constrained rhetoric is insufficient to a "long war." And from all sides, more and more people are calling its bluff.

[Dog Gone]

Anyone know what having to take laptops and cameras out of their cases does to help homeland security?

I think it does the same thing that forcing someone to walk barefoot through the metal detectors does.

[hattend]

BTTT

[Clock King]

You missed Steyn's point. They use the Patriot Act as an excuse to request a finger print. If it their own policy to require a fingerprint to cash a check, then let them be up front and state so, but don't lie.

[varon]

BTTT

[jiggyboy]

He's writing it though, not cashing it.

[Chgogal]

"Even the "friendliest" Arab regimes tend to be a bunch of duplicitous shysters: King Hussein sided with Saddam in the Gulf war, Mubarak and the House of Saud are the cause of much of our present woes."

Yes!!!! Down with ROP and up with ROJ!

Please put me on the Steyn Ping List. Thank you! :)

[bboop]

We're in Los Angeles. I know what you mean. Some people, many people, just cannot stand to face Reality head-on. Nevertheless, it continues to exist. Look at the numbers of 9/11 Democrats who call Rush. I think people are starting to get it. Except in San Fran, where they believe the bad guys would never hurt THEM.

I see that Cindy Sheehan was in our neck of the woods last week. Too bad I didn't know ... I could be in jail today, celebrating having annoyed her.

[Huck]

Most sentient beings have been aware that there is, to put it mildly, a large element of evasion about this basic narrative, but only now is it being explicitly rejected by all sides. William F. Buckley and George Will have more or less respectfully detached themselves from the insane idealism of shoving liberty and democracy down people's throats whether they want it or not.

That's the most antiwar I've heard Steyn sound.

[livius]

LOL! It might almost be worth it...

[ClaireSolt]

I imagine it helps when people say no. A lot of this stuff is unconscious. People make up forms and ask a lot of stuff they don't need. I think that is often very true of new patient forms at the doctor.

[SunTzuWu]

Steyn never mentions fingerprints for your bank. That was another Freeper.

[Valin]

So what? There were millions of "moderate" Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them.

Apples & oranges,

[nothingnew]

Thanks Pokey.

The quagmire isn't in Iraq but at home.

'nuff said.

FMCDH(BITS)

[King Prout]

businesses have been getting progressively more and more nosy over the last 15 years or so.

for cash transactions, it is now not uncommon for clerks to ask for personal information to add to the database.

screw that.

I used to argue about policy and law with them, but have instead started simply answering with "My name? Johnny Cash. My phone number? (areacode)382-5968." (look at the buttons, think rude, and figure it out)

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the ping!!!

[Revolting cat!]

My phone number? (areacode)382-5968." (look at the buttons, think rude, and figure it out)

What? R-I-N-G-O-F-F-I-R-E?

[Billthedrill]

I have shared the frustration with Bush's maddening locution "religion of peace" but let's remember a couple of facts - we have 160,000 servicepeople in a Moslem country and we don't need to have the terror war expanded into a war of religion with them in place. We all saw how some silly cartoons were ramped up by the unscrupulous to inflame a good part of the world. If we have to pretend in public that there are millions of moderate Moslems out there then so be it. George Will doesn't have responsibility for the troops' safety - but George Bush does.

[King Prout]

naw... though if I felt like spoofing the area code as well as the number that'd work... but would not be satisfactorily rude.

[caveat emptor]

You missed Steyn's point.

You both seemed to have missed my point. Bureaucrats are ubiquitous these days, as is their, ahh, abuse of power. Steyn took what are commonplace occurrences in dealing with just about any bureaucracy, and used them to argue against the Patriot Act.

Annoy a nurse when asking about the condition of a close relative in hospital and you may get stiff-armed with patient confidentiality yada yada yada. Rub a cop the wrong way while getting a simple traffic ticket and you never know where it may end up. Catch an examiner for a driver's license on a bad hair day and you may be back again the next day hoping to get a different examiner.

Check out these two guys if you still don't understand what I'm talking about.

[pollyannaish]

This is a great article.

The Patriot Act is not alarming in and of itself, and not alarming from a law enforcement or governmental perspective. It is, however, alarming how much credence we give to people who manipulate breathless press reports and leftist shrills to further their own quest for information. What's worse, that we let them. That should be flat out illegal if it isn't already.

I think ALL of us need to be more vigilant in making sure that we don't allow people to do all sorts of things under the guise of "It's in the Patriot Act, don't you just hate it! Now, sign here."