Wednesday, October 13, 2004
ABOUT THE WAR ON TERROR
Candidates Bush and Kerry have agreed that the “war against terror” will never be won.
In an interview a couple of weeks ago, President Bush said that he didn’t think the war on terror would ever be ended. Later, Senator Kerry said or implied that the war would be over when the fear of terrorists was reduced to a tolerable level. Both men agree that there will always be terrorists and we can work until doomsday and not exterminate the last one.
They disagree on when and whether to stop waging all-out war against terrorists. Mr. Bush argues that we must continue the effort until terror has been completely stamped out. According to his own statement, that will never happen. Hence, we are destined to live from now on in a perpetual state of war against terror and terrorists. Mr. Kerry offers a more optimistic view. Eventually we will destroy or neutralize the immediate terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, and we can replace the war with an international police action. We would return to the conditions that existed before September 11, 2001.
Well, which is it? Is international terror something we will have to learn to live with, like more ordinary crimes such as murder and burglary, or is it something that we will have to devote our major resources to combating for the rest of time? In a free society, which we still believe in, there is no way that any authority or any preemptive action can prevent an act of terror or any other heinous crime. If some person decides to murder me and is willing to die in the act, there is no way that the police or any other arm of the law can prevent him. In a free society, justice can mean only punishing a crime after it has occurred. To prevent the crime, we must give up the notion of a free society and agree to live in a completely militarized and regimented society. We must give up our freely elected officials and agree to be governed by a hopefully benevolent despot. We know that despotism is the most efficient kind of government, just about the opposite from democracy.
The Bush administration proposes “strengthening” of the Patriot Act and vilifies its critics. The administration argues that criticism of the President’s policy hurts the morale of our troops. We must rally around our leader and stifle all criticism until the war against terrorism is won. Mr. Bush has told us already that it can’t be won. This tendency of the Bush administration toward despotism must be stopped. We know that democracy is inefficient, slow, sometimes corrupt, and that despotism is efficient, fast to react, but also sometimes corrupt. One of the founders of our republic said that while despotism is like a great, fast ship and democracy like a leaky raft, the ship can strike a reef and sink, but the raft is indestructible.
In an interview a couple of weeks ago, President Bush said that he didn’t think the war on terror would ever be ended. Later, Senator Kerry said or implied that the war would be over when the fear of terrorists was reduced to a tolerable level. Both men agree that there will always be terrorists and we can work until doomsday and not exterminate the last one.
They disagree on when and whether to stop waging all-out war against terrorists. Mr. Bush argues that we must continue the effort until terror has been completely stamped out. According to his own statement, that will never happen. Hence, we are destined to live from now on in a perpetual state of war against terror and terrorists. Mr. Kerry offers a more optimistic view. Eventually we will destroy or neutralize the immediate terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, and we can replace the war with an international police action. We would return to the conditions that existed before September 11, 2001.
Well, which is it? Is international terror something we will have to learn to live with, like more ordinary crimes such as murder and burglary, or is it something that we will have to devote our major resources to combating for the rest of time? In a free society, which we still believe in, there is no way that any authority or any preemptive action can prevent an act of terror or any other heinous crime. If some person decides to murder me and is willing to die in the act, there is no way that the police or any other arm of the law can prevent him. In a free society, justice can mean only punishing a crime after it has occurred. To prevent the crime, we must give up the notion of a free society and agree to live in a completely militarized and regimented society. We must give up our freely elected officials and agree to be governed by a hopefully benevolent despot. We know that despotism is the most efficient kind of government, just about the opposite from democracy.
The Bush administration proposes “strengthening” of the Patriot Act and vilifies its critics. The administration argues that criticism of the President’s policy hurts the morale of our troops. We must rally around our leader and stifle all criticism until the war against terrorism is won. Mr. Bush has told us already that it can’t be won. This tendency of the Bush administration toward despotism must be stopped. We know that democracy is inefficient, slow, sometimes corrupt, and that despotism is efficient, fast to react, but also sometimes corrupt. One of the founders of our republic said that while despotism is like a great, fast ship and democracy like a leaky raft, the ship can strike a reef and sink, but the raft is indestructible.
