bjturk.commentary: america and war

bjturk.commentary
hanging from my own rope

opinions
just vote no
political charities
irresponsibility
favors make enemies
war profiteering
arpaio, enough!
royal views
memorial flags
role models
the race lost
9/11 + 2 years
once a soldier
war on iraq
the pledge
war on terrorism
the clergy under fire
u.s. pride
post-9/11 defiance
the church's faith
election 2000
candidate credibility
harry potter
father's day 2000
the family ages
customer disservice
elian gonzalez
y2k
laid off
power of the cto
alternative education
olympic spirit
one tough sheriff
re-election '98

humor
kiribati

join the acme yacht club,
for sailors of misfortune!

this button space is donated as a public service.

this bjturk.commentary:
america and war

Once, again, America is at war. This time, it's a war against terrorism. It's not a war that the United States is likely to win. Wars are best fought when both sides are clearly delineated and the combatants know who is who, and particularly that they both know who isn't fighting.

As the war against terrorism rages on, militarily in Afghanistan and more covertly in other places, one wonders how successful this will be. While our hearts tell us that we are fighting the good fight and justice will prevail, our minds tell us that terrorists are like sharks' teeth: one comes out, and another one just moves forward to take its place. Reality rears its ugly head, part of the Vietnam legacy, to remind us that in wars, people die, and in this kind of war, the innocent are more likely to fall among the condemned. Of course, this becomes a public relations nightmare, but it goes on in any case, and victory after victory is proclaimed without any indication that the battle was worth fighting in the first place.

Thousands of families still grieve after having lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. What closure will they gain by seeing terrorists wiped off the map? Almost none, I fear, and the terrorists as a group remain as powerful as ever. After all, we have the Vice President of the United States declare that another attack will happen eventually, so we all have to be on our guard. Does that mean forever? If I live in fear of another attack, then the terrorists win. I won't do that.

The Land of the Free stops being free when freedoms are taken away, or discouraged, in the interest of the cause du jour. Today, it's terrorism, and the well-intentioned but misguided lawmakers plan on enacting more gun laws to prevent terrorists from getting firearms. Generally, terrorists don't obtain firearms from federally-licensed dealers, but instead either on the black market or on the street where they are less likely to be traced. The best of intentions penalizes the law-abiding citizen while having no effect on those who are outside the law to begin with. I understand that the two students who murdered so many at Columbine High School in Colorado broke over thirty gun laws. Would more gun laws have stopped them? I doubt it, and I don't doubt that this is only the beginning.

As George Carlin pointed out, whenever America doesn't like something, it declares war on it: the war on crime (we're losing), the war on drugs (losing that one too), the war on poverty (2nd place and not getting better), the war on homelessness (getting worse), the war on terrorism (treading water, and we have no idea if we're actually making progress). Note that all of these things on which America has declared war are fluid enemies, which can change shape and size virtually at will. They're like viruses that you can treat but never cure.

As things stand now, the question has become this: How great a price are we willing to pay? How much freedom are we willing to trade for a sense of security that, in reality, will be no greater afterward? America's founding fathers were concerned that, in the face of fear, we might legislate away the very freedoms that they fought so hard to secure. It should be no surprise that this has been happening for a long time, always in the name of some vital cause, but it continues nonetheless. Are we truly safer now that we have so many gun laws on the books? Are we safer now that the Brady Bill became law, and yet the wife of the man for whom the bill was named went out later on bought a gun in a manner that circumvented the background checks mandated by that bill?

We want to believe in our government, and we want to support what we feel in our hearts is the right thing, but how can we do so when the enemy is so nebulous? We can't know where he is hiding, because he could be hiding anywhere, even next door. We can't be sure if we've killed him, because there is always someone else to take his place. And we can't be sure when the job is done, because ten slip through the cracks for every one that is caught or killed. They have been hunting Osama Bin Laden for a year now, and they can't be sure of reports that he may be dead. How will they be sure when the job is supposedly over?

This isn't like World War II. The enemy is not obvious. The enemy is not in a discrete area. The enemy does not wear a uniform. When the enemy is so hard to pin down, it is very difficult to show that you are making progress. We learned this in Viet Nam, and we are being forced to learn it again. The U. S. government would better serve the world, and itself, by making the rest of the world as inhospitable to terrorists as possible. That simply cannot be done by trying to catch or kill every one that may be in a certain country. The last time I checked, there were lots of other countries where terrorists could be hiding. I don't want any of them given a free pass. Who is watching what may be going on in Germany when all the efforts are being concentrated in Afghanistan? While I support the war on terrorism, I would support even more a smarter war on terrorist harbors.

July 7, 2002

You'll always be broke if people don't pay you attention!
Your feedback is welcomed.

[home][web design and development][writings][stores][about us][donations]