A War Almost Lost

<>By
<>

Tom Molloy

Whenever President Bush tries to justify our invasion of Iraq by saying that we are fighting terrorists “over there” so we don’t have to fight them on our own soil, it causes me to shudder. I wonder if the President is naive enough to believe this or if he is trying to con the American people.

Experts tell us there are cells of terrorists in the USA that are now planning to cause massive destruction in our country. The government has reacted to this omnipresent threat in two ways: First it has greatly expanded and consolidated intelligence gathering capabilities. Second, it has expanded the size and scope of our security forces in order to protect our vital installations from attack. I submit that these measures are necessary but insufficient. If we stake the survival of our civilization on these two measures, we are deluding ourselves. Our intelligence gathering will never achieve perfection and we will never be able to protect every potential target.

The war in Iraq, whatever one’s feelings about it, can hardly be considered a measure to stop terrorist attacks from being planned and executed against targets in the United States. President Bush seems to assume that the terrorists can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

One congressional committee after the other keeps discovering that, no matter how much money we spend, we still seem vulnerable to terrorist attacks. There are so many modes of attack. Two examples of highly destructive weapons: small nuclear bombs or shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. It is doubtful that we can prevent these weapons from being smuggled into the United States and even more doubtful that we can protect every potential target against them. Given the weapons, a reasonably bright group of 12-year olds could plan and execute attacks.

The terrorists have an infinite number of targets from which to choose, but our resources to defend against attack are finite. If we were to enlist every American into our intelligence or security services, we still wouldn’t have the manpower to defend every potential terrorist target. Given our vulnerability, I don’t know why the terrorists haven’t attacked us again since 9/11. However, I think it is dangerous to equate “haven’t attacked us” with “couldn’t attack us.”

The Bush administration tells us that the war against terrorism is going to be a long one. This prediction is based on the sanguine presumption that we are going to win it. Yet, Hollywood is not writing this script; Tehran and Damascus are. I can guarantee you that their script doesn’t depict us as the winners. I suspect their script envisions a relatively short war that brings down Western civilization.

If nuclear bombs were to explode tomorrow morning in 10 or more major US cities, I don’t think the President could appease the American public by stating that the “War on Terrorism” was just going to take a little longer than he had thought and that he was sending 50, 000 more troops to Iraq to fight them ”over there”.

The razing of 10 major cities along with the ensuing horrors would be so grotesque that even Dick Cheney might be compelled to admit that we had suffered a setback in the “War on Terrorism”. The average citizen would realize that we had just lost the “War on Terrorism” but I suspect the administration spin would be that the attack was the last desperate act of a group on the point of extinction.

Imagine the scenarios in the devastated cities: A total breakdown in law and order; citizens fighting one another for scraps of food, water, and medicine; massive looting; the dead rotting in the streets; rampant disease; abandonment of infants, the old and infirm--a scenario too horrible to contemplate, but if we don’t contemplate it, we are going to be forced to live it.

It’s not that our enhanced intelligence and security capabilities are totally nugatory, but reliance on these inadequate measures as our first line of defense against terrorism indicates a national “death wish”. Some morning we will wake up dead, complicit in our own suicide.

I believe that there is one way we might win this war. The Achilles heel of the terrorists is their dependence on their patrons for support. They can’t support their terrorism habit by working part time in a car wash. Weapons and explosives, particularly nuclear bombs and shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, are expensive. Without patrons, the terrorists would be hard pressed to commit acts that cause massive casualties.

Every day, while we wage war in Iraq, politicians denounce the nations that are patrons of terrorism. For one reason or another, these nations feel that their support of terrorism is in their interests. Despite our protestations about their support for terrorism, they thumb their noses at us. Simply stated, the time has come for us to make it clear to them and the rest of the world that their support of terrorism is no longer in their interests. We must make it clear they are in danger of losing their thumbs and their noses.

My fellow Americans, we have to make a decision. Are we going to meekly wait to be slaughtered or are we going to defend ourselves? Right now we are biding our time until a massive terrorist attack brings us to our knees. We are deluding ourselves. We are waiting for a Deus ex Machina ending, the sound of bugles as John Wayne comes riding over the hill with the cavalry.

Admittedly, the “doomsday” strategy I am going to suggest is not for the timid, but the time for timidity has passed. Life–long friends have chided me for even thinking about this strategy.

STRATEGY

The United States of America should issue the following proclamation:

1. Nations and individuals supporting terrorism against the United States and its interests must cease their support immediately: (List names)

2. Effective immediately, the Unites States regards all citizens of countries that support terrorism as enemy combatants.

<>3. With respect to terrorism, the United States has adopted the doctrine of disproportionate response. That is to say, the response of the United States to any act of terrorism or intended act of terrorism will be to devastate entire towns or cities of the patron states with non-nuclear weapons. <>

4. The United States, in the interests, of showing states supporting terrorism the error of their ways, will give a demonstration of the future consequences of supporting terrorism. <>

5. The town of_________________ located in ______________________will cease to exist in 15 days (incendiary, not nuclear, weapons will be used). It is suggested that evacuation of this city commence immediately.

6. Should the government of (targeted country) decide to install foreign hostages in the targeted town, the United States will annihilate not only this town, but will also wipe out a major city on the same day. The name of the second city will not be announced in advance. It will simply be “now you see it; now you don’t.”

<>7. The United States will hold the targeted countries, in the absence of proof to the contrary, responsible for each and every act of terrorism against the United States. If there is no clear connection between a minor act of terrorism and one of the targeted countries, we will randomly pick one of these countries and devastate several of its cities. A major act of terrorism will result in the total destruction of the targeted countries. There will be no investigations, no hearings, no negotiations; no appeals; there will just be devastation. <>

8. Effective immediately the United States will assassinate individuals known to be supporting terrorism.

9. The United States has no intention of losing the ”War on Terrorism” and will take whatever measures are necessary to eliminate terrorists and their patrons.

<>10. The United States urges citizens of the targeted states to change their governments before their countries are annihilated.

Most readers will have recoiled at the thought of destroying cities and killing so many “innocent" people. There are two points I would like to make. First, whether or not we kill people will depend on the acts of their governments. Second, I lived many years in the Middle East and I can assure you that many of these “innocent” people would rejoice if Americans were slaughtered in a nuclear attack. Many, who would never dream resorting to violence themselves and who loudly condemn violence, felt a twinge of delight on 9/11 because long-suffering colleagues had finally taught the West a lesson. And I remind you that virtually all main stream Muslim leaders refused to categorically denounce 9/11.

Most Westerners feel that, when the stakes are so high, we can reason with people. You can’t reason with Islamic (or any other) fundamentalists any more than you can reason with a virus. We may dissuade patron nations from supporting terrorism by instilling fear of annihilation, but it is fear, not reason that will determine their response. The inexorable logic of this strategy notwithstanding, I myself have moral qualms about advocating it. I just wish I knew if my qualms spring from moral fortitude or moral cowardice. As for morality, if we don’t take action, we won’t be alive to discuss ethical nuances.

I know we are not going to adopt this strategy? We are meekly going to await our fate. We are going to die knowing that our cause was just, but not just enough to do what is necessary to win. Because of our failure to defend ourselves, our losing isn’t an option; it’s a certainty.

How ironic! Ignorant fanatics are preparing to obliterate the resplendent legacy of DaVinci, Mozart, Aquinas, Kant, Shakespeare, Bach, Dante, Cervantes, Beethoven, Einstein, and Keats.

The barbaric legacy that is going to triumph sanctions stoning women to death for adultery and killing innocent rape victims to restore family honor. It preaches hatred and promises suicide bombers eternal bliss for killing innocent women and children.

<>Throughout history barbarians have brought down great civilizations and, I fear, they are about to do so again.

<>Aw shit!