Posted on 09/17/2001 3:24:00 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
The American Constitutionalist
By: Aaron Armitage
Their Feet Run to Evil, and Make Haste to Shed Blood
I once read somewhere that Gallup did a poll in 1944 showing that 96% of the public knew we were at war, which means that 4% of the public wasn't even aware of WWII. Except for the modern day equivalents of those people, and perhaps a few tribesmen in the Amazon, everyone in the world knows that on September 11 America suffered the worst attack in its history. It's been compared to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but it's worse and certainly far more evil than that. The number of the dead is higher, and the attack was directed against civilian targets with the idea of killing as many innocent people as possible.
We have done nothing to deserve this, but those who say we could have avoided it by staying out of the affairs of other counties are right. No one attacks the Swiss. It's too late for that, though, like telling Parliament they'd be better off not taxing America on July 5, 1776 or giving Roosevelt advice about protecting our military bases from sneak attacks on December 8, 1941. Now is the time to fight.
It would be impossible for us not to retaliate. It would be like a play in which Hamlet doesn't eventually get around to killing the king. We should be warned, however, that while we will do what we must it will be much harder than we think. This is going to hurt. Whatever our reaction is, we will face more attacks. More likely than not, we're going to wind up occupying portions of the Middle East, with the guerilla warfare that implies. There's even a good chance this will lead in unpredictable ways to upheavals we can't see yet. We're already in it, and we need to prepare for what lies ahead.
What we must not do, though, is forget that we are Americans. We're not the Taliban, and being attacked by them is no reason to start acting like them. There is no need to sacrifice liberty. To lose liberty is to lose, and there would be nothing more disrespectful to the dead. Ending curbside check in and other such ideas share two important features with most security measures adopted after catastrophe. It makes ordinary people jump through hoops, and it would have nothing to stop the crime that inspired it. National ID cards are unfit for a free people, even a free people at war.
Worse than these predictable moves to limit freedom are incidents of violence against Muslims, or even "ragheads" who aren't Muslim. A blunderer in California by the name of John Phillip Lucas decided to imitate earlier Californians' mistakes during WWII and drove a tractor in front of the door at a temple before diving into a sacred pool, thus defiling it. There was one problem, other than his impeding incarceration: the temple was a Sikh temple. Sikhs wear turbans and have beards, but are not Muslim and in fact have a history of conflict with Muslims.
A Sikh was shot to death in Arizona.
Even if the victims really are Muslim, the people who commit these acts are described by the title just as much as the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center. We should also refrain from attacking Muslims outside the United States just for being Muslims, both to keep ourselves from being stained with innocent blood and to prevent terrorists from getting what they want. The hijackers and plotters want us to retaliate. Otherwise, they would not have attacked us.
They hope we retaliate in a way that will unite the Muslim world against us, and so we must avoid that at all costs. We must and will retaliate, but we must do it in a way that retaliates only against the people directly supporting and harboring Osama bin Laden.
The attack brought out the best in many Americans, and the worst in a few. The great danger facing us now is that we will act rashly, and instead of bringing war to the Taliban, turning Islam into the enemy, and instead of taking a few necessary measures to increase security, becoming more of a police state. As hard as it is now, we need to exercise prudence, if only to deny the terrorists the final satisfaction of making us fools.
Thank you for the flag.
Perhaps true of the individual perpetrators, but the coordination implies some degree of strategic thinking. I think it's more than revenge and/or hatred.
Uh...because that's not an alliance?
"Is it possible that we don't need allies with whom to have mutual defense pacts..."
Is an alliance merely an agreement for temporary cooperation, or does it involve promises of future action under given conditions? I see a distinct difference between mutual defense pacts, such as NATO -- precisely what George Washington wisely advised against -- and unilateral aid to strengthen nations against perceived adversaries, in return for which the recipients sometimes perform services for us to keep the aid flowing. This isn't even an alliance, IMO, but a series of acts of mutual benefit by and for each. Upon the demise of the perceived adversary or the dissolution of the threat, the nature of the relationship should be re-evaluated.
We are stuck in a cold-war mentality vis-a-vis Israel. Our close relationship might do more harm than good in pursuit of the current adversary (as should have been seen 10 years ago) but could become quite important again at some time in the future.
We shouldn't forget that we created not only Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, but to a great extent the military threat of the Soviet Union which made them seem necessary, and the conditions in Germany (not to mention Japan) which led to Hitler's rise, initially making a militarily strong Soviet Union seen necessary.
How far back should we go to evaluate what got us where we are today? Doing so is not for the purpose of hand-wringing but with the hope it might guide us to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
I double disagree. If the attack wouldn't have happened without alliances with Europe and Isreal, then we don't need these alliances. Those Americans who have individual attachment to Europe or Israel could volunteer their help individually, like they did in World War I before 1917 and in the civil war in Spain.
But an attack would have happened. When, without our poking and prodding in the Middle East, a solidified Arab states had a firm grasp on the OPEC spigot, and when enough dominoes would have fallen in Europe, we'd be facing hungry looters at our door.
I believe some of the survivors of the consentration camps have succesfully sued the Swiss for their part in that atrocity.
That's not necessarily the case, if the results of not being allied are far worse than the costs of alliance.
But an attack would have happened. When, without our poking and prodding in the Middle East, a solidified Arab states had a firm grasp on the OPEC spigot, and when enough dominoes would have fallen in Europe, we'd be facing hungry looters at our door.
You may be right. Islamists do ultimately want to control the entire world, since that would be the end result of successful jihad. However, it's not certain they would win in the Middle East. The main target of Islamists is usually moderate Middle Eastern governments, as in Egypt today or Iran leading up to the revolution. If we weren't involved in the Middle East, they'd still hate us, but there would be more important targets for them at home. I suppose you could compare them to Nazis in the 1920s.
As libertarians we dislike distant threats: we prefer to deal with proximate causes. It is a mistake to transfer this attitude to foreign politics, which is all about potential threats and preemption of future aggression.
It is not in our interest to have a new Mongol Horde roll over Israel and Europe, so it becomes in our interest to have alliances with these nations that are of significant duration. Unless there is durability to the alliance, the small countries that we don't want to succumb one by one will seek separate deals with the Horde and won't provide a united front, which we do need.
Aren't you basically agreeing? Why wouldn't it be possible to set up alliances with the nations WHEN we see the new Mongol Horde attempting their advance instead of IN CASE they make an attempt? Or do you think that not having a formal alliance would preclude having intelligence on the situations/conditions in a given country?
The tendency of government to remain in alliances w/o periodically re-evaluating them seems like good enough reason to follow such an approach.
You're kidding! I would have never believed it! Today, yes. But then, I'm surprised.
Secondly:
Thanks for the ping to another great and thought provoking essay! Your essays are good enough, but the discussions that they always provoke are a wonderful bonus! Luckily I don't have to choose which I appreciate more but can enjoy BOTH!
They hope we retaliate in a way that will unite the Muslim world against us, and so we must avoid that at all costs.
It looks like the administration IS trying to avoid that. While that slows down the response and can be frustrating it is definitely the wiser course in the end.
and instead of taking a few necessary measures to increase security, becoming more of a police state.
THIS is what I am watching. There's been a few press briefings where I've heard some ideas bantied about that sent chills up my spine with concern!
We are always basically agreeing.
The superstructural difference is that an alliance that is contingent on what the Horde does when it does it, does not yield the goods, because the control over such alliance will be signed over to the Horde.
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.