Posted on 09/15/2001 2:21:55 PM PDT by Mel Gibson
September 12, 2001
WASHINGTON--This is not crime. This is war. One of the reasons there are terrorists out there capable and audacious enough to carry out the deadliest attack on the United States in its history is that, while they have declared war on us, we have in the past responded (with the exception of a few useless cruise missile attacks on empty tents in the desert) by issuing subpoenas.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to ``bring those responsible to justice.''
This is exactly wrong. Franklin Roosevelt did not respond to Pearl Harbor by pledging to bring the commander of Japanese naval aviation to justice. He pledged to bring Japan to its knees.
You bring criminals to justice; you rain destruction on combatants. This is a fundamental distinction that can no longer be avoided. The bombings of September 11, 2001, must mark a turning point. War was long ago declared on us. Until we declare war in return, we will have thousands of more innocent victims.
We no longer have to search for a name for the post-Cold War era. It will henceforth be known as the age of terrorism. Organized terror has shown what it can do: execute the single greatest massacre in American history, shut down the greatest power on the globe, and send its leaders into underground shelters. All this, without even resorting to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
This is a formidable enemy. To dismiss it as a bunch of cowards perpetrating senseless acts of violence is complacent nonsense. People willing to kill thousands of innocents while they kill themselves are not cowards. They are deadly, vicious warriors and need to be treated as such. Nor are their acts of violence senseless. They have a very specific aim. To avenge alleged historical wrongs and to bring the great American satan to its knees.
Nor is the enemy faceless or mysterious. We do not know for sure who gave the final order but we know what movement it comes from. The enemy has identified itself in public and openly. Our delicate sensibilities have prevented us from pronouncing its name.
Its name is radical Islam. Not Islam as practiced peacefully by millions of the faithful around the world. But a specific fringe political movement, dedicated to imposing its fanatical ideology its own societies and destroying the society of its enemies, the greatest of which is the United States.
Israel, too, is an affront to radical Islam, and thus of course must be eradicated. But it is the smallest of fish. The heart of the beast--with its military in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Persian Gulf; with a culture that ``corrupts'' Islamic youth; with an economy and technology that dominates the world--is the United States. That is why we were struck so savagely.
How do we know? Who else trains cadres of fanatical suicide murderers who go to their deaths joyfully. And the average terrorist does not coordinate four hijackings within one hour. Nor fly a plane into the tiny silhouette of a single building. For that you need skilled pilots seeking martyrdom. That is not a large pool to draw from.
These are the shock troops of the enemy. And the enemy has many branches. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Israel, the Osama bin Laden organization headquartered in Afghanistan, and various Arab ``liberation fronts'' based in Damascus. And then there are the governments: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya among them. Which one was responsible? We will find out soon enough.
But when we do, there should be no talk of bringing these people to ``swift justice,'' as Karen Hughes dismayingly promised mid-afternoon Tuesday. An open act of war demands a military response, not a judicial one.
Military response against whom? It is absurd to make war on the individuals who send these people. The terrorists cannot exist in a vacuum. They need a territorial base of sovereign protection. For 30 years we have avoided this truth. If bin Laden was behind this, then Afghanistan is our enemy. (BEG ITAL)Any country that harbors and protects him is our enemy. We must carry (BEG ITAL)their war to them.
We should seriously consider a congressional declaration of war. That convention seems quaint, unused since World War II. But there are two virtues to declaring war: It announces our seriousness both to our people and to the enemy, and it gives us certain rights as belligerents (of blockade, for example).
The ``long peace'' is over. We sought this war no more than we sought war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan or cold war with the Soviet Union. But when war was pressed upon the greatest generation, it rose to the challenge. The question is: Will we?
I can just see Powell huddling with the UN security council and getting us committed to some 20 year policing job instead of making a retaliatory strike.
I did read somewhere that Powell is being shut out of the loop on a lot of what's going on. I hope that's true.
No we turned tail as usual and encouraged the Kurds to finish
what we started, then abandoned them to the wolves, like
we did the Cambodians.
Read this book. It explains how the war with Iraq was never concluded.
Richard W.
Before they named him SecDef I was hoping they'd name him Sec Education - that's where his heart is, these days.
It depends which side they choose to play on. If they want to be on our team--which means that they crack down on terrorists, take the anti-American hate out of their state-controlled media, etc.--then they do not have to surrender and disarm. Otherwise, they do. Probably some of these countries that don't play on our team will end up under a U.S. military government for a while--as happened with Japan after WWII.
I wish there were a more palatable alternative. But the status quo, where these governments protect terrorists and build arsenals of hatred, is unacceptable.
You replied, "Nope. It's a sign that the U.S. Government doesn't want the children quarreling while we're taking care of business.
I wish that I could agree with you. But if what Powell wants is for the two parties to stop fighting for a while, then he can give that message to Arafat and Sharon separately. An Arafat-Peres meeting does nothing to stop fighting.
My fear is that the "moderate" Arab states are demanding that the U.S. help the Palestinian Authority in return for their participation in the fight against Bin Laden. If we are caving into those demands, then we are dealing from weakness, not from strength.
Ouch, that hurts. You left out the loyal Montagnards in Viet Nam and the Cuban freedom fighters at Bay of Pigs. Sometimes our government is incredibly stupid and disloyal. A bit of air support to the Kurds might have finished our dirty work. But who knows, would the Kurds be any better than Saddam, if they were in power? Smarter people than me should know.
I couldn't agree with you more. Israel can put a major dent in this whole problem in a big hurry. Hopefully it's in the works as we speak. Arafat expresses his sympathy, and gives blood? Garbage. Phony snake. He fears for his sorry life, he doesn't want to give it up, as he encourages and brainwashes little kids to do so. Vile sub-human.....time for him to go. Unleash Israel.
I think he's over his head as Sec. of State.
He just doesn't seem to have that particular toughness so necessary to convince our detractors that we will kick butt and hard when we say we will and make them believe it the first time we say it.
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.