Sept. 11 – A Perspective, Six Years
Later
Contemplating
the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 “Islamofascist” attack on America has generated
a torrent of thoughts and reactions in my mind. And, I can’t help wondering why
our nation is so divided about the War on Terror?
I was in high
school during World War II, and I don’t remember any major disagreements
between Americans about the war, whether we should be fighting it at all or if
we brought the Pearl Harbor attack on ourselves or whether we should take the
fight to the Japanese. It was implicit but clear that to allow them to hit us
again on our own turf was unthinkable.
In his famous
speech to Congress the following day, FDR memorialized Dec. 7, 1941 as “a date
which will live in infamy.” There was no hesitation about what our response
should be, nor do I remember any equivocation during the conduct of the war,
which did not end until after we dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
1945. Everyone understood that we were
in a fight for our very existence, a fight we did not start and for which we
were not prepared, but surely one we had to finish, or we would have ceased to
exist as a nation. It was a simple proposition, they win, we lose, live or die.
That’s the nature of wars. You cannot fight wars in a half-hearted or
politically correct way. For all the talk about the Geneva Convention and
“rules of war,” they are not regulated by some sort of Marquis of Queensberry
rules, and everyone understood that.
So, what’s
different now, 60-plus years later?
For One, Our Politics:
We are
clearly divided over whether the War on Terror is a real war or some sort of
regional conflict or if, in fact, it’s a war at all, as opposed to criminal
activity that more properly falls within the purview of the justice system.
A Clear Understanding of Who the Enemy
Is:
In past wars,
everyone knew who the enemy was. That was still true during the Cold War, with
the Soviet Union and communism in general. But today, not everyone seems to
fully appreciate or agree with the fact that we are fighting an enemy that
transcends national boundaries and whose motivation is based on their religious
beliefs, that their ultimate goal is to convert the entire world to their
religion or kill all those who refuse.
Letting the Military Run the War:
During World
War II, we let our military make the essential decisions about how the war
should be fought. MacArthur was given a free hand to wage the fight in the
Pacific. And, it was pretty much the
same for Eisenhower in Europe. We lost Vietnam because our political leaders
interfered with the conduct of the war, which had disastrous consequences. The
political situation today has the potential of producing a similar result in
Iraq.
Acceptance of the
Nature of War:
War is
brutal; no quarter is given and it cannot be conducted in a politically correct
way. During World War II, Americans did not question the necessity of fighting
with no holds-barred. The objective in past wars has always been to bring the
enemy to their knees, striking against centers of production and destroying
their ability to produce weapons. That invariably caused civilian casualties. As
deplorable as that may have been, it was generally understood and accepted as
necessary. London and many Russian cities were almost totally destroyed by the
Germans, and many German cities were bombed almost out of existence. Loss of
life on both sides, both military and civilian, was massive, totaling in the
millions.
A Clear Understanding of the Meaning
of the Term, “Giving Aid and Comfort
to the Enemy:”
Supporting
our enemies during times of war has always been considered treasonous. We went astray during the Vietnam War, as
exemplified by the Chicago Seven and the likes of Jane Fonda. But, during World
War II there was no doubt what the term meant.
Today, there doesn’t seem to be any limitations on the behavior of
American citizens, such as Sean Penn, Jessie Jackson, Cindy Sheehan and other
like-minded protestors.
Wars are
Messy:
For all the
strategic and tactical planning that goes on during wars, the fact is that both
sides are constantly maneuvering to gain the advantage, and their moves are in
a constant state of flux, always changing. Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969),
commander of Allied Forces in Europe said, “In preparing for battle I have
always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”
Recognizing That Wars Often Last for
Years:
Many
Americans are already showing signs of fatigue early in the process of what
promises to be a fight that will probably last for a generation. We’ve been in
Iraq for four years and people are already growing weary of it. But, the Brits only
recently pulled their troops out of Northern Ireland, after almost 40 years of
fighting Irish terrorists. Many Americans have grown up with the mistaken
impression that wars are waged in the time span of a T.V. show or a
documentary, while the reality is that they often last for decades.
America has
not been placed on a “war-time” footing: In general, we don’t’ seem to be
deprived of anything because we are at war.
Although there is non-stop media coverage of the War on Terror,
especially Iraq, much of it almost has the look and feel of a TV show. For many
Americans, there has been little or no direct consequence affecting their
personal lifestyles, careers, education or other aspect of their lives, no
significant shortages, no rationing, no military draft. Indirectly, of course,
everyone has been affected by massive government spending to finance the
effort. I believe this fact alone accounts for the attitude that so many
Americans seem to have that the War on Terror is largely government or political
hype. And, although our individual freedoms have been curtailed somewhat by the
Patriot Act, it doesn’t appear to be unreasonably limiting them. There are
those, of course, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, that argue
otherwise, but I don’t believe it’s possible to protect ourselves adequately
without limiting our rights to some degree. Unlimited freedoms are simply not
possible in wartime.
As we
approached the sixth Anniversary of Sept. 11, Cal Thomas wrote, “‘Why didn’t we
see 9/11 coming’ was a question frequently asked in the aftermath of that
terrorist attack. And the answer should be, because we forgot the attacks
preceding that one, or brushed them off as inconsequential aberrations so we
could get back to watching the stock market go up and obsess about Bill
Clinton’s pants coming down. By not remembering those earlier attacks, the
reasons behind them and the intentions of the terrorists and those who trained
and incited them, we put ourselves in further jeopardy… Not to remember 9/11, is
to forget what brought it about. That can lead to a lowering of our guard and a
false sense of security…” (Townhall.com, Sept. 6, 2007).
That’s what
concerns me most as I contemplate another anniversary of Sept. 11, that Sept.
11 has not become a battle cry, like “Remember the Alamo,” exhorting Americans
to never forget that we are at war, that we must not only remain vigilant but
that we must respond directly to the threat of “Islamofacists” everywhere, at
home and abroad, or we risk becoming just another footnote in history.
© 2007 Harris
R. Sherline,
All Rights
Reserved