The War About the War

The 9-11 attacks did more than start a war; they started a war about the war. No sooner had the World Trade towers collapsed and the Pentagon burst into flames than two perceptions of the threat began competing for the public's support:

For the third time in history Islam - or, more precisely, its most radical element - has launched a war whose objective is the destruction of Western civilization. Our survival is at stake, and despite its imperfections we believe that Western civilization is worth defending to the death. Moreover, in the modern world - where a small number of people can so easily kill a large number of people - we cannot just play defense; sooner or later that strategy would bring another 9-11. This conflict really is a clash of civilizations whose root cause is Islam's incompatibility with the modern world. So we must fight with everything we've got against the terrorist groups and against those governments on whose support they rely. If the Cold War was "World War III," this is World War IV. We must win it, at whatever cost.

There are quite a few people in the world who just don't like the United States and some of our allies because of how we live and, more precisely, because of the policies we pursue in the Mideast and elsewhere in the world. Alas, a small percentage of these people express their opposition through acts of violence. While we sometimes share their opinion of our values and our policies, we cannot condone their methods. Our objective must be to bring the level of political violence down to an acceptable level. The only way to accomplish this will be to...

“Yet he hasn’t done things that a president who truly believes that we’re at war should have done. For instance, in the aftermath of 9-11 he didn’t ask Congress for a declaration of war, didn’t bring back the draft, and didn’t put the US economy on a wartime footing. A president at war would have taken out Iran’s government after overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan — and then sent 500,000 troops into Iraq, rather than just enough troops to remove Saddam Hussein but not enough to stabilize that country. And a president at war would have long since disposed of Syria’s murderous regime and helped the Israelis wipe out Hezbollah.

Study history, and you quickly learn that oftentimes events and the responses they generate look different a hundred years after they happen than they look at the time. It may be that history will judge that President Bush performed heroically, doing the very best that anyone could do given the two incompatible perceptions about the conflict that have divided public opinion and raised the level of partisanship in Washington to such a poisonous level. Or, it may be that history will judge the President to have been a failure because he responded to 9-11 as a politician rather than as a leader.”

I have said this for years and years ... one of my biggest complaints was that in the aftermath of 9/11 we dod not have a serious enough debate about who the enemy was and what we were going to fight and that we didn’t declare war and prepare the country.

Using the “middle ground” approach sent the American public back into the “all is well pop culture” mode instead of stealing them for the fight ahead. We, as a culture, have short memories and because the government did not “mobilize” the coountry, as it were, the government is paying the price. Back in the 1940’s, the government did a good job preparring the people ... and kept reminding them over and over and over what the fight was about. Heck, they even used Hollywood to keep up the reminders ... look at war time Warner Brothers cartoons and wartime movies. The governemnt and war department was heavily involved in these projects.

I wholeheartedly believe we are in the first case, a real war with an enemy that wants to kill us ... and God help us if they obtain the means to do so in mass.

But, we have not been prepared for such a fight.

!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.

“Since the 9-11 attacks, President Bush has been trying to split the difference. It’s obvious that he, personally, subscribes to Perception One. Just read his formal speeches about the conflict, such as those he’s given to Congress and at venues such as West Point. They are superb and often brilliant analyses of what he calls the War on Terror. Yet he hasn’t done things that a president who truly believes that we’re at war should have done. For instance, in the aftermath of 9-11 he didn’t ask Congress for a declaration of war, didn’t bring back the draft, and didn’t put the US economy on a wartime footing. A president at war would have taken out Iran’s government after overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan — and then sent 500,000 troops into Iraq, rather than just enough troops to remove Saddam Hussein but not enough to stabilize that country. And a president at war would have long since disposed of Syria’s murderous regime and helped the Israelis wipe out Hezbollah.”

While I agree with some of the gist of the article, the author engages in wonderful 20/20 Monday morning quarterbacking. After seeing how things didn’t go smoothly, it becomes very easy to suggest alternate plans that will never be tested by reality.

It is very likely that had Pres. Bush done everything that was suggested by the author - the Islamic world might have interpreted our actions has hegemonic and empire building, and a total arousal of a large Islamic movement to resist the total aggression of the U.S. The results could be far more catastrophic than what has currently happened.

Ultimately, the Iraqi people and the entire Islamic world can see that the U.S. seeks to offer the Iraqi people, the Afghan people and others a chance for liberty and a government that is representative of the people, rather than oppressing the people. As some analyst suggested, the U.S. has given the people of Iraq and Afghanistan a chance for freedoms, and only they can finally win or loose the battle. The US, with all its might, can only offer these peoples a chance to succeed (or fail) - but the success or failures are ultimately theirs. Thus far, we have done an excellent job of giving them the opportunity. Mistakes have been made, but the mistakes have been because we don’t want to be overly aggressive and cause unnecessary civilian casualties.

Any real analysis of past wars would show a record of more mistakes and errors compared to what we have experienced in this war. Perfect - no way ...but the statement that no plan survives first contact with the enemy still remains valid. It is easy to criticize the mistakes - but it also becomes necessary to recognize all the successes, and there have been many!!!

Mike

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.