Yesterday was the anniversary of when it became apparent to me that not only were there people that wanted me dead just because I didn't believe as they, but they could make it happen and weren't afraid to try, even at the cost of their own lives.
I believe that most Americans understand that now, no matter their political stripe. The debate we have is how we deal with the fact, and there are several schools of thought, but mainly they boil down to two main camps: those who say we should execute this battle as if it were a war, and those who say we should treat it civilly, as if it were a criminal act against us. Both camps are wrong.
I've come to the conclusion that this "war on terrorism" as Bush calls it (and really it would be a war on terror*ists*. You can't have a any war on an -ism, as that is a war on a concept, not a being.) shouldn't be described as such. We're not at war as we know it in the modern era.
A modern war is fought between nations who want tangibles. We don't have nations attacking us with their armies. These are bands of individuals--certainly supported by various governments--whom do not want our land, or our resources, but merely want us dead. Their tactics aren't with troops in uniforms, but with citizens in civilian garb. Their weapons are not tanks and jet fighters, but improvised explosives, chemicals, and even our own passenger jet liners. Their end isn't terror--that's just a side benefit. What they want is for all who are not like them to be wiped from the earth. Why? Because we preach the opposite of what they believe the planet should be. We see individual rights and tolerance for differing beliefs. They see obedience to one belief, and if not, then death. I'm not talking about people who merely follow Islam, but Islamists--people who want their beliefs to be everyone's--or else.
The camp that wants to fight these murderers in court, giving non-citizens Constitutional rights and lawyers understands the threat, but believes that the best way to handle the uncivilized is in a civilized manner. It's an interesting theory, but there was 10 years of that in the 90s, and little progress was made.
The camp that wants deal with this threat as if it was a war, with tanks and bombs, has made more progress... but aren't really fighting a war with an army that one can defeat. We saw this with the recent Israeli conflict with Hezbollah. Israel would be attacked from a village and would fire back, destroying those who fired at them. The terrorists would point to people in the rubble and count them as civilian deaths and decry Israel's actions. Are those people civilians? Yes. That's the new enemy, unfortunately. Civilians who take up arms against others not to secure their own liberty or that of others, but to murder those who are different. Why do many Arabs want Israel to cease to exist? It's not because the U.N. gave them a strip of land 60 years ago. It's because those that hold that soil believe in a slightly different sect of the same religion. It's the only real reason.
How does one really fight a war against people who would murder their own, kill themselves, all to see you dead? With smart-bombs and surgical strikes? With ground troops and covert intelligence? That plugs the cracks in the dam, but does nothing about the water pressing down. A modern war as we fought in the first Gulf war merely slows terrorists down. Israel has shown us that it won't stop them. They've been dealing with the problem far longer than we, and they can't stop the death.
Much is said about how we haven't gotten Usama bin Laden and so we've failed in Afghanistan. What people don't get is that bin Laden is useless now. He's done nothing since 9/11 and can't come out of hiding to do more. The threat now is from new people who have taken his place. We could kill bin Laden today (and if we did it would be trumpeted as a major success) and it would do little to change the face of the world. We killed the number one terrorist in Iraq, and little changed for more than a few days. Those who say we must get bin Laden (or any one person) don't understand the complexity of the threat. There's no leader like Hitler or Stalin. It's a beehive of insanity. Killing the queen bee means another will rise to take her place, and the hive will continue to thrive.
And the hive is everywhere, not just in Afghanistan or Iraq. Bush gets criticized for having made Iraq the new "front" for the "war on terror." There is no front. Its where a lot of battles are because WE'RE there, and if we weren't the battle would rage elsewhere--wherever our troops sat.
I wish the children weren't caught in the middle. It's the babies that die in this battle for whom I feel most bad. But the adults who support terrorists in their respective countries? It's hard to feel much sorrow for them. And yet, I do feel some, as often they are trapped in their circumstances. But still, they're partly the enemy. They either participate, assist, or allow terrorists to operate all around them.
So what's the answer? Not treating it like a criminal matter--that does little. Not a modern war--that's a stopgap that seals a crack while another develops. The answer is to fight this like a real war, not a modern war. The ideology of the Islamists that want THEIR ideology pushed over the world is a battle like that of a medieval war. They're fighting with the ideology of the 13th Century, and we are responding with 21st Century ethics. That's not going to work.
We can't care more about the enemy's welfare than they do themselves. We can't hesitate because the people they use for protection are in harms way--they put them there. We can't not cut off supply lines because some may suffer. It's sad that people suffer in war, but we didn't start this medieval war--they did.
Five years ago, almost 3000 people died and this nation banded together and supported taking action. We've since fallen apart along partisan and philosophical lines and while we've been safe--for now--from mainland attack, that won't last forever. Another attack will happen, perhaps next year or perhaps in ten years. But more people will die and we will stagger around wondering why we didn't do more to stop our enemies than we have.
What could we do now? Far more than civility and modern warfare dictates. I'm not suggesting we rape and pillage across the holy land, a la the Crusades. I'm suggesting we stop playing patty-cake with despotic regimes (all of them--not just those who don't have oil we want) who encourage their people to threaten us and our allies. If Iran wants to play with nukes, I suggest we use our military to cut off all supplies to their country. If Syria wants to support Hezbollah, we do the same to them. If it costs us at the gas pump in the short run, oh well. Time to start pumping out own oil again, building our own refineries, searching for alternate methods... actually doing what it takes to be able to cut off all those who wish to see us dead, both monetarily and literally if necessary.
We, and I do not mean just the United States, but all of Western Civilization, will regret not doing all it takes to protect ourselves. ALL. Not just a little. Not just defensive measure of listening to phone calls and looking through shipping containers.
Would being more aggressive create more terrorists? It sure could. The penalty for being a terrorist is going to have to be high. A trial and applying the Geneva Conventions? That's not a penalty, that's a grave mistake for which the terrorists will laugh at as as they plan to slit our throats.
If you want to remember those innocents that died five years ago, also remember WHY they died. Not the politics of it--but the philosophy of why. Because: you choose to believe in something your enemy does not. And for that, he wants you dead. Remember that above all else. And for the sake of your children, demand that something be done to save them.