Yes, I know this list is for MV discussions however in view of the war, I
feel as others seem to do, for a short time, it is appropriate to be both
emotional and patriotic here and digress.
This article sums it all up (IMHO) and I think each of us should forward it
to our representatives in the government and anyone else we know with a
demand that we do declare that a State of War has existed between the United
States and these countries which harbor the soldiers who attacked us.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Krauthammer
September 12, 2001
This is not crime, this is war
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. Any
country that harbors and protects him is our enemy. We must carry 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?
©2001 Washington Post Writers Group
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:58:58 PDT