Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Defining the Terrorists &
What will Protect us/USThose who have said that keeping the Senate in session all night to voice opposition to the Iraq War didn't accomplish anything weren't looking close enough.
As that night got closer, wasn't a “new”—and revealing—intelligence report released—“proving” how right the war is and how well it's going? Didn't they also find and remove another top Al Qaeda official? Amazing the timing, huh? Amazing how much movement that night caused. Was that serendipitous?
It makes you wonder what could happen if the Senate had more votes and made it even closer. Might we have another event such as the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident?
What might happen if the topic were impeachment? Or if the Administration's continuance were at stake?'I'm guessing that they wouldn't want to be caught in a lie'and, like always, would make sure they were being as upfront with us as they can. Then again, I might be wrong; and who knows their ability to be upfront.
While there were reports saying that the Senate effort ended without a policy change that misses its significance. They were finally willing to lose a little sleep over this. It's about time, isn't it? Heaven knows too many have lost a lot more than sleep.
In truth I'm not so sure about immediately bringing everyone home. I'm beginning to listen to those who are jumping up and down shouting, “they'll follow us home.””They may not be aware of it, but I think they are on to something.
If the idea that “they'll follow us home” is correct—and certainly someone might—then we need to think of what we ought to be doing here to get ready for that. The exit strategy we need to come up with pertains to us/US, not Iraq—and clearly, no one yet has an exit strategy. We knee-jerked in there and may return via opposite and equal knee-jerks.
If we acted as if we could be followed we might want to look at a few things such as really protecting our airports, instead of collecting water bottles—for California's drought no doubt. We might'decide it's important to know what is being imported and protect our seaports, and our dams and power plants. We might want to do some of the things that we could have done first, when we realized we live in a dangerous world.
What we do hear a lot is how inadequate those protections are now.
The “they'll follow us home” group thinks there is only one solution to prevent terrorists from following us home—keep fighting over there. One day the terrorists doing the bombing, however, might think it's easier just to bypass Iraq, pass go and go straight to Boardwalk. It's not like they are from'Iraq.
Some of the more fascinating and revealing things that just came out in the report about Al Qaeda being on the run and how we were winning there, were buried a bit.
We know that Al Queda never had a presence in Iraq. There were none before the war and they now make up about 5% of the insurgents in Iraq—so they're getting stronger, you see?
At the same time, Al Queda is responsible for most of the car bombings. Amazingly, those 5% are mostly foreigners (mostly Saudis) and were not involved in terrorist activities in their country until they decided that our presence in Iraq was just too much for them to bear any longer. So they have gone to Iraq and become suicide bombers, yet were not involved in terrorist activities previously. So the people doing most of the bombing wouldn't be in Iraq, if we weren't in Iraq. Iraq might be very different without those bombings.
How much our presence grates on the people in the Middle East has been brought out before, but it doesn't seem to register with enough of our leaders. Unlike Bosnia, where UN troops, lessened violence, our presence in Iraq has the opposite effect.
If we weren't in Iraq,
wouldn't it be difficult for the Saudis and other potential bombers to get to the point that they could no longer stand our presence there? We now make our troops into lightening rods for violence.
Would many come here? What's more likely is that they have noticed by watching us that it doesn't work to invade and try to occupy someone else's country. But we can't ignore the possibility.
While there are things to do in the US to protect ourselves, ultimately we can't protect against everything—against every threat. So wouldn't it help public safety to bring home the many firemen and policemen now in Iraq?
I know some of you are probably thinking that we shouldn't worry about it since this is the domain of'Michael Chertoff and'the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but you might want to think again. Unless we have adopted the Chinese approach and are now executing bumbling bureaucrats—well still, remember what they say about the best-laid plans. The DHS hasn't been accused of having the best of plans recently—or since their beginnings.
The British seemed to have realized it's a dangerous world.'Compare how we approach the terrorists with how they think.
I read one newspaper article by an American writer who characterized the British people as “nervous” and”“on edge” after the recent bombing attempt. Based on what? I've always wondered how writers can know that?
That story actually ran right above one by a British writer that gave a very different picture of the British attitude—one I've heard'expressed quite a bit. They simply aren't going to let a terrorist threat—or even a bombing—take away their freedoms or their peace of mind. They don't tell anyone to “bring it on” and they guard against terrorism, and they refuse to live in fear. To their way of thinking, if they did that, they would be letting the terrorists win.
What the terrorists want to do is spread fear. They can't do that without our participation, and the British refuse to be beaten that way.
The British accept that part of living in modern times means one individual can go crazy and kill people for any reason. Relative to the numbers who die from heart disease, cancer, automobile accidents and war, the number of people a terrorist can reach is very small. And when they do, the British refuse to fan the flames of fear. They look for where to protect better next time, without affecting their freedoms, and they live their lives they way they want.
Perhaps it's because they lived with bomb-threats and bombs from the IRA Irish and were under siege during WW2. They are a strong people who have been through more than we have. They've developed an attitude.
The world has changed since 9/11—especially since this endless war began—and while we're trying to control the threat and be safe,'we can't give up our way of life. It's not going to revert to the way it was so it's up to us to adjust.
Thinking we can ever totally eliminate violence means collecting not only every hazardous material we can think of—but knives, forks and maybe spoons too. It only takes one nut, how can you control everyone?
There is a lot we could look at before leaving—and given the effect of our presence we need to quickly. But we also need an exit plan that looks at how we need to prepare. Look at the DHS plan now, beforehand.
Look at those with systems that work. El Al, the Israeli airlines, is considered the most secure airlines in the world. That's pretty incredible. Are we finding out how they operate?
We also need to look at how we structure our cities. Are we building targets for terrorists?
Rather than build an infrastructure that relies on gigantic structures let's move towards houses that are more self-contained and independent when it comes to providing us energy and water.
If terrorists want to sabatogue our energy and water systems, instead of making it easy and giving them one big target, let's make them go door-to-door.
There are ways to be more independent too. Leonardo DiCaprio's movie, The 11th Hour , features many people who can help us do that while building a sustainable country. His movie comes out late in the month and we'll feature it next issue.
More than anything, however, we need an exit attitude. We need to know what kind of world we live in and adjust to living in it without giving up how we want to live.
When it comes to who wins the terrorist battle, that's up to each of us and our dedication to our pursuit of happiness—are we creating our own sense of well-being or not? Wouldn't you think that the Administration would want to promote the idea that we can't be beat—and not the opposite? Isn't doing the opposite'really a terrorist act—one that creates fear? Living in fear is un-British-like, shouldn't it be un-American too? We need an attitude.
Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
