Warn Me No More!

Sometimes I just get plain tired of being warned by everybody and their little brother. The hypocrisy of our critics, foreign and domestic, is easily recognized as empty rhetoric based in emotional arguments of little discernible substance.

We have a mission to execute to achieve a goal, the eradication of terrorism and the infrastructure that supports its existence. Innocents will likely be harmed. It is not an American goal to harm innocent people but it is still likely, coincident to the execution of the goal of eradication of terrorism. Why? Because terrorist organizations will maximize that probability in the hope that global opinion will turn against the USA as a result. Yes, sad as it is to contemplate, we will snuff out the lives of some whom we would choose otherwise. But if we are to remain loyal to ourselves and the western notion of civilization we cannot be deterred by this possibility in our quest to stamp out random mass murder and restore security for the average family, in the USA or elsewhere. It is incumbent on us as the leaders of western civilization to root out the heart of religious radicalism and cut it out of the body politic for the good of all.

Secular politics, as practiced by the USA, has allowed for the free trade and exchange of ideas so crucial to the democratization of nations across the planet. While we have a strong religious bent we have not used it as a political basis for sharing the wealth, as it were. The clash of ideas between the religious and the not so religious has ever been present in our Nation and in our dealings with the rest of the world. It is a healthy tension that improves us all. If one side of the equation gains an upper hand it adds to the deterioration of both sides.

The collapse of the Soviets can be attributed to its prohibition of free religious choice as much as it can be attributed to a central economic planning model. Its unwillingness to let people decide how to believe in God undermined the basic trust people had in their government. And in true form a government that will not allow you to worship in the manner of your choosing will not let you make other important choices as well. The Chinese continue to follow that model and will eventually suffer the same consequences. The Falung Gong may be the Chinese religious equivalents of the Branch Davidians here in the USA. Neither are mainstream faiths but persecution of the fringes can sorely strain the relationship with the not so fringe religions as was discovered by England several hundreds of years ago. The fanaticism of the true believers of Mohammed, as expressed by followers of Osama Bin Laden, to deny the Western interlopers their lives is another extreme position in the spectrum of tolerance.

We have the opposite problem here in the good old USA. We are tending too much toward the secular in government. The population sems to be split 50-50 at this point in time but the government is supportive of the secular 50% who would deny the 50% of religious faith their choices. In an attempt to allow a broad definition of choice they have curtailed the ability of society to define the moral standards by which we all should be measured. This is a mistake of immense proportions and will have consequences which can be imagined but not specifically predicted with certitude. Those consequences are at hand and may affect the immediate future but I believe that the most severe consequences are still a couple of years down the pike.

We are still strong enough to accomplish the mission that President Bush has laid out. The cost will be high but the results will be crucial to our future. I support President Bush and decry the costs but I pray that we will cut out the heart of terrorism and hold it out as it beats for all the world to see. Only then can we expect to achieve the peace that we so anxiously crave.

There is no doubt that we have to go to war. Shoot, we ARE in a war, through no choice of our own. But just how will terrorism be "eradicated?" Is such a goal possible? A "war on terrorism" reminds me of a "war on poverty" or a "war on drugs" both of which have merely increased the thing against which a war is being waged. It is like saying we are going to eradicate war. Really? How? We have the ability to do that?

I think we desperately need a more narrow and concrete objective, even if it is an ambitious objective, like the subjugation of all Islamic nations, or an overthrow of all governments which support terrorism, or just a dismantling of Bin Laden's network. But a "war to eradicate terrorism" is way too vague and general and impossible. It's bound to fail. It's as silly as talking about eradicating hunger, disease, violence, or cockraoches. Ain't gonna happen, because we're humans, not God.

I agree that we need to specifically define the point at which we can declare victory. Colin Powell did this very thing in the Gulf War. However, it is also true, in my opinion, that he defined it too narrowly and we have paid the price since. I think he made a mistake and I do not blame him for it. His goals were correct and he knows it. We must craft the definition of victory with as much care as we can and then proceed.

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.