Google Custom Search

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Let's Get Started

The world today is at a crossroads of sorts that could determine the future of civilization for many years to come. Never before have there been such opportunities for freedom to flourish, yet never before have the forces opposed to human liberty mounted such herculean efforts to thwart the progression of freedom and advancement. Cultures and societies clash on values, concepts, world-view, religion, philosophy, and ideology. Henry Kissinger has recently suggested that there lies before us the stark possibility of a war of civilizations. I would like to suggest that perhaps that war has already begun.

The recent ABC News docu-drama, 'The Path to 9/11,' portrayed for us in striking detail the challenge that we face. This controversial film raised the ire of many politicians, leading to a media feeding frenzy that served to bury the basic message of the film beneath all the rhetoric.

This film was not about fixing blame. Neither was it intended to create scapegoats for a mindset in American culture that, prior to 9/11, was based upon a false sense of security that has prevailed ever since the end of the Cold War. Granted, the Clinton Administration's handling of the threat of terrorism was fraught with missteps, oversights, and a rather cavalier attitude that was indicative of American culture in general at the time. It is doubtful that any administration would have acted with any more resolved, except perhaps on a limited level. One can imagine a George W. Bush administration reacting proactively to the attack on the USS Cole, for example, but it is questionable that a Bush administration would have been any more prepared for an attack such as 9/11 when the entire society at the time lived under the assumption that we were invinsible. Little did we know how vulnerable we really were. Even the lone voices within the Clinton Administration who sensed that vulnerability were no doubt taken by surprise when the Towers actually fell. And thus, those who would seize upon 'The Path to 9/11' as a path to indictment or to seek vindication miss the point entirely.

The point is we are in grave danger as a society.

We are somewhat more prepared to deal with the threat of terrorism than we were prior to 9/11, but we are, after all, a free society. Freedom places limits on what governments can do in dealing proactively with threats that are posed by terrorists, who work covertly and with no single state sponsor. Their backing comes from a variety of sources both in and outside of recognized governments. Never before in the history of modern civilization have we faced such an enemy. Our vulnerability does not stem primarily from a failure of government but from the limits of a free society.

The question, thus, remains, how do we forge a path that both protects the precious liberties we cherish as Americans and yet protects the security that we have come to cherish as well?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. Great article. I'm glad I ran across this by accident. How often will you update your comments?

Anonymous said...

Yack yack yack...bloggers come a dime a dozen...

Anonymous said...

A dime a dozen? not when they have something worthwhile to say
the redneck

Anonymous said...

So do you think Bus has struck a balance, or do you think he has crossed a line?

Anonymous said...

crossed what line?

Welshman said...

Thanks for the words of support. And perhaps we do come a dime a dozen, but I hope that here readers can find something that is different and a cut above.

Regarding the question as whether or not the President has 'crossed a line,' the answer is yes and no. The Supreme Court ruled recently that he did overstep his bounds on a couple of key components of the war on terror. My opinion is that this is a pitfall inherent in the fact that we live under such vague provisions in General Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

In addition, terrorists are very familiar with acceted tactics of interrogation, and they are trained to resist such tactics. I believe it is reasonable to engage new tactics to throw them off balance. Apparently this has worked, for a few of the key terrorist suspects have yielded information that has prevented perhaps thousands of deaths.

This is not a cut-and-dried issue, but an issue with many nuances that complicate the process. This is why I believe that clarification is in order so that the President does not 'overstep his bounds' in the future.