The Danger of Complacency in the War on Terror

It is frustrating to see America become complacent in the war on terror. I am certain that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are determined to detonate a WMD in either Manhattan or Washington, DC, or in both places at once. Yet America is not fighting the enemy the way it ought to.

After Pearl Harbor, we did not rest until after we had crushed Nazi Germany and Japan, and they each surrendered unconditionally. Yet today we are paralyzed with political correctness and have forgotten that war requires we do horrible things in order to win it.

It is always a matter of degree. Reasonable people can argue about when the war began. I strongly believe it began in 1993 when the enemy first attacked our World Trade Center in New York. (Sometimes, I think it began in 1979 when our embassy in Tehran was invaded.) But one thing is for sure: ever since 9/11, we have been in a state of war.

I don't know what Al Gore would have done had he been president. But George W. Bush has done worse than doing nothing, since his weak actions have only served to do the following:

1. Weaken us economically. We are down about a trillion dollars due to his incompetence. To make matters worse, he cuts taxes, making us even weaker.

2. Prolong the war. His nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq have prolonged the war and served as a recruiting tool for our enemy. There are now more terrorists gunning for us, and planning that WMD attack, than on September 10, 2001.

3. Fight from weakness. We have not fought from our strength, but instead, we fight according to the script OBL has written.

So, what should we do? I already outlined two different strategies, one using soft power, the other hard power. But our problem is caused by weak and inept leadership both in the White House and in the military.

Bush has received, deservedly, much criticism. But not enough has been said about the weak, inept military leadership. To be clear, I am not talking about the rank and file in our officer corps, but the highest echelons. The ones who are supposed to advise the civilians in the Pentagon and White House.

Apparently, they failed to explain to Bush et al what it means to be at war. What we are supposed to do to our enemy. The dangers of protracted, ineffective wars.

I realize I have little credibility on military issues. But it is my understanding that at places like West Point, our cadets are taught about the histories of war, and lessons learned. Some of this focuses on the classics from Greek and Roman Empire eras. A large part of it is based on our own history regarding, in particular, the Revolutionary War (in which my ancestors fought), our Civil War, and World Wars I and II.

What I know is this: you must crush your enemy, or else he will come back to try to kill you another day. We are not doing this, so we grow weaker, and the enemy gathers his strength.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and stir up our country the way it was stirred up on December 7, 1941. Or somehow resurrect FDR and replace Bush with him. Or replace our generals with men like Sherman, Lee, Grant, Eisenhower, and Patton. But that won't happen. Still, I believe Americans like that are out there somewhere. Maybe they are junior officers who learned their history lessons well. But the great men I cited also had moral courage. The courage to do what is both right and necessary, and don't give a damn what the media says about them, or whether their actions are politically correct.

We must accept both that war is hell, and that we are at war. We must kill many innocent women and children, because our bombs cannot distinguish between them and our enemies. We must inflict so much pain and agony on our enemy that it will surrender unconditionally. We must be so ferocious that they will believe that "God" is on our side, not theirs.