Let's meet real enemy

At least that's what James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recently told members of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal.

Woolsey, a man who once spent his mornings briefing the U.S. president, spoke to the institute about "security and trade in the post-Iraq era."

Woolsey refers to the Cold War as WWIII, and believes WWIV is a more appropriate description of our current circumstances than "the war on terrorism." This war could be downright glacial compared with the Cold War.

Woolsey described three main groups: The Iranian ruling class, including the Islamist Shia, the ruling clerics, and the Mullahs of Iran; the Baathist Parties of Iraq and Syria; and the Islamist Sunni. These groups are more illusive than traditional enemies because they are not confined to the borders of any particular nation-state.

Woolsey believes WWIV began many years ago, but it took the events of Sept. 11 to cause people to sit up and take notice. In addition to Sept. 11, Woolsey cites more evidence of the Glacial War: The 1979 hostage-taking in Iran; the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut; the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Africa; and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. He predicts the length of this war will be closer to the 40 years of the Cold War than the shorter world wars.

Why the hostility? Woolsey shared an anecdote of a discussion he'd had with a Washington, D.C., cabdriver who told him: "These people don't hate us for what we've done wrong. They hate us for what we do right."

He believes part of the reason the West is susceptible to attack is that the groups above came to believe they could attack without fear of retaliation. Woolsey described post-Second World War America as "a rich, spoiled, feckless country that wouldn't fight." Instead of reacting to these attacks with a military force, the U.S. chose to punish aggressors with lawyers and lawsuits.

He parallels this with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. When Japanese leaders were asked after the war why they attacked the U.S., their response was that they thought the U.S. was easy prey and wouldn't mount a counter-attack.

Woolsey is concerned that years of ignoring the possibility of attack on North American soil has left our cities easy pray for opponents. He points to defenceless oil pipelines, exposed bridge cables, and vulnerable power grids as examples.

He recommends the adoption of drastic and swift measures to minimize the vulnerability of domestic targets. We need to identify procedures and infrastructure susceptible to attack -- a search for the flimsy cockpit doors and poor baggage checks of the world if you will.

However, adopting swift and drastic measures does not include limiting freedom domestically. Woolsey warns against adopting draconian and unconstitutional measures in the name of fighting the enemy. To this point, we have not witnessed the dilution of civil rights that led to the creation of Japanese internment camps in the Second World War, but Woolsey warns against allowing the rational fear of attack as an excuse for suspending civil rights domestically.

Woolsey is on the mark. If, in combating terrorism, we suspend our own civil rights, we have, at least in some measure, lost the war. If you agree that our opponents hate us for what we do right, which I would suggest includes freedom of religion, speech, conscience, and thought, then you must agree that suspending these freedoms in the name of fighting the war is a victory for those who hate us for what we do right.

"These people don't hate us for what we've done wrong. They hate us for what we do right."

What is the WHAT? A vague generality. Be specific. What exactly are we doing right that makes muslim extremists on the other side of the world want to come over here and kill people and destroy stuff? Is it because we run efficient steel mills? Or because we are so great at teaching our young to read and write at an early age? Or we have great artists? This is an insufficient statement. I have a suspicion that the correct answer lies along the lines of resentment about dollar hegemony, and US support of Israel. How many attacks against Canada? Making no value judgements about hegemon or Israel, just want to know what the real reason is and cut out the BS.

"He parallels this with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. When Japanese leaders were asked after the war why they attacked the U.S., their response was that they thought the U.S. was easy prey and wouldn't mount a counter-attack."

History is not my strong area, but I seem to recall that Japan was really upset before Pearl Harbor that we had imposed an oil embargo against them in response to their military adventures in China. Embargos are considered acts of war are they not? Maybe ours was a very nice embargo, instead of an act of war, but it served to pinch the Jap oil supplies and to make them angry. So they hit Pearl. But the media in this country likes to make it sound as if we were sitting over here minding our own business with nothing to do with Asia, when the Japs hit Pearl out of the blue for no reason. And here's Woolsey saying the Japs did it because they thought we'd be easy prey and that we couldn't respond. Sure they's squander the resources that went into the Pearl attack for no political reason; no economic reason; nothing to gain by it; sure I believe that. Not. Let's cut the BS and KNOW really why the muslims want to attack us. May not matter either way as we'll continue to do as we have. But cut the BS.

What exactly are we doing right that makes muslim extremists on the other side of the world want to come over here and kill people and destroy stuff?

We are the best in the world at producing the most good for the most people. Capitalism and Western culture sweeps all other systems before it. Given a choice, the common people always choose American culture because it gives them the most choices, the most freedom, the most prosperity, the most security. The enemies listed hate us because they know that given a choice, their people will choose our way of life, and their vision of the way things should be, which is fundamentalist Islam, will fade into obscurity. It cannot compete with the West on peaceful terms. It has tried to do so, and it looses, every time.

The attacks by our enemies are a desperate attempt to return to the 13th century, when Islam had an edge over Christendom. The West changed, invented the separation of Church and State, religious tolerance, Capitalism, the Scientific Method, and modern technology. That is why they hate us. Our success, our very existance, threatens the continuance of their way of life, because their young people will freely choose our culture, because it offers them so much more.

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.