TFP Column: Who Should We Fear On 9/11?

Yes it's been a while since I last penned an effort for the Toledo Free Press, but since Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller has rather high standards for a publication that has just earned more awards this year from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists, it's difficult to offer something that meets them.

Of course this week's effort, "Who Should We Fear On 9/11?" doesn't come close to meeting such standards (which is probably why your truly didn't win anything); but Michael has been kind enough to put it up this week on the TFP website anyway (probably out of a miquided and mistaken feeling of sympathy).  On the other hand, perhaps he was simply looking for someone to look the anniversary of this tragedy without waving the flag.

This has been a busy week in Toledo, with the Mayoral and City Council primaries just completed and the Glass City still in full festival mode; so anyone wanting to keep up with what's going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio will need to spend a bit of time on the website, at least until this weekend's edition comes our of  "The Best Weekly Newspaper" in Ohio for what is now the fifth straight year, The Toledo Free Press.

The Cost of Victory

On the first anniversary of the day that Usama bin Laden was killed, the President made a surprise trip to Afghanistan where he signed a historic treaty with that nation. Please note that this was an agreement and not a 'treaty', in spite of the fact that as that "defines a new kind of relationship between our nations" (according to the Fox News transcript).  Now normally such an Agreement between nations would have required Senate approval before having any legal meaning, but let's set that aside to consider the subject at hand.  

From Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, the President spoke both to the troops assembled, to the world at large, and just as prime in the US began; saying that, "The goal that I set – to defeat Al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach." 

He went on to say, "In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with Al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them."  

And continued later with, "The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to Al Qaeda."

If in fact all of this is an honest assessment of the world situation in the fight against Terrorism (and I am willing to concede, at least for the sake of argument, that the President is better informed on such things than I am), then this means that for all intents and purposes, the War on Terror is all but over.  

While I have been thus far willing to concede points, my concession speech is now over, and I must say that all of this one gives me pause for doubts.  Nevertheless, if we are to believe that this is true and not just a political stunt pulled in an election year to win votes (a practice which all first term Presidents are certainly capable of), I for one have a few questions for this Administration:

• Why are we still permitting the draconian (and mostly failed) procedures and methods of the TSA to provide what passes for Airport Security in this nation?  If tensions are in fact easing, why are we still doing pat downs on 80 year-old women in wheel chairs, aggressive pat downs of seven year-old girls with cerebral palsy, and four year-old girls who run to their grandmothers?  Don't these practices contradict the statements being made on the international stage?
• Why do we need the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which suspends the right of habeus corpus (something of questionable Constitutional authority which has only been done previously during periods of war), and permits the government to indefinitely detain suspects without charges or trial, even if they are American citizens?  The president himself stated that he was reluctant to sign the bill in the first place.  Why then can't we see one of those famous 'executive orders' rescinding the Constitutionally questionable portions of legislation which shouldn't have been passed in the first place?
• Why must we continue to cede to the government the use of National Security Letters, which permit the FBI to do wire taps, searches of telephone and financial records, and email history without a court order, through the renewed provisions of The Patriot Act passed just under a year ago?  If this battle is winding down, surely this nation no longer requires the extreme and again Constitutionally questionable practices ceding the basic rights of its citizens guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the government
• Why are we still discussing the deployment of unmanned (and at least according to the government unarmed) drones to perform what must in light of these changing circumstances, be considered little more than an unnecessary bit of 'routine surveillance' of the civilian population in this country?  If tensions are in fact easing, surely we don't need Big Brother watching over us quite so closely (and probably illegally) any longer?

The cynic in me cries out at the curious coincidence of timing in such an announcement so close to the November elections (like Leroy Jethro Gibbs, I don't believe in coincidence).  Certainly we expect there to be the usual amount of grandstanding, selective fact recognition, and creative story telling this time of year. The safety of this nation is not a game to be played or something to be trifled with for the sake of two, four, or six more years (depending on which office you're running for); and woe betide the politicians who attempt to play fast and loose in doing so. 

The political pundit in me is likewise suspicious of events which turn the public's attention away from critical domestic issues and towards the nonsense of a non-treaty treaty; one which in turn will be followed by another non-treaty treaty that will come later in Chicago. Such events often prove to be media events staged more for political ends than real agreements of regional peace; especially in an area that has not seen such a thing for thousands of years.

We knew going into the War on Terror that the price of failure would be a heavy one indeed, both in terms of the potential loss of life and that of damage to this nation.  The lesson of 9/11 taught both of those lessons to us the hard way. We knew going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan would likewise take their toll on this nation in lives and treasure, and we were not wrong.  We may have some idea of the financial burden we incurred, but it will be many decades before we learn what the real human cost of these conflicts are in the shattered lives and shattered families that we are only now beginning to count.

What none of us forecast over ten years ago however, is what the 'Cost of Victory' would be.  Oh sure, we recognized that putting this country on a domestic war footing with an enemy that was more than willing to bring the battle to our soil was going to have a financial cost; most of it in terms of bureaucracy created to deal with this new world we were confronted with.  Few if any however, recognized the price that we would be paying in personal freedom; or in the aggressive power-seeking mentality that we were creating in government.  Few indeed foresaw the runaway train of government growth, fed by a mind-set that was apparently perfectly willing to sacrifice the liberty that's at the foundation of this country for a illusory security that never existed before and never will.

I sometimes fear that the cost of this victory has already been a far greater one than we ever realized, and one that we may not be prepared to bear in the years ahead.

 

TFP Column: 9/11 - Conflicting Feelings

As promised, my second effort of the week is appearing online on the Toledo Free Press website.  After some email exchanges with Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller, I got to work on an effort commemorating the 10th anniversary of 9/11; something that they are going to devote this weekend's edition to.

As the title describes, "9/11: Conflicting Feelings" speak to the evolution of my emotional state in the years since the events of that tragic day.  I won't try to describe them, as it was hard enough to put them on paper once.  I will recommend however, that you keep your eyes out for this weekend's special edition of Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

America's Longest War ... Really?

Having studied logic during my days in college, it breaks my heart when someone attempts to reach a correct conclusion from a false premise. Under the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem', such things are bound to happen, but they often defy the odds.  Oddly enough, Lewis Diuguid actually manages to get to some truth in his piece, "America's Longest War is 10 Years Old And Raging", but his premise that the wars in the Middle East are our longest conflict is in fact a false one.

The longest War that America has been fighting should more accurately be considered to be Korea. Begun on 6/25/1950, it was the first of the US 'undeclared wars' (though some point far earlier to Panama). Though an armistice was signed on 7/27/1953 US troops are never the less still defending South Korean borders, a military budget is expended on their behalf. and shots have been fired (artillery shells, in fact) as recently as last year.

Next on the list of Wars we are still fighting, is that announced on 1/8/1964, LBJ's 'War on Poverty'. This undeclared war was the beginning of the 'Great Society' and is one we have been pouring billions of dollars into for some 47 years with no victory on the horizon and no end in sight. If anything, the goal may be further from achievement now than when begun.

Such things being bi-partisan, the next of the wars we are still fighting was the 'War on Drugs' declared on 6/17/1971 by President Richard Nixon. Nixon even managed to enlist Elvis Presley into government service a second time and awarded him a badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; which seems rather ironic, since the subsequent deterioration of Presley's health was largely contributed to by years of drug abuse. The influx of drugs and the number of casualties in this war are far too well documented for me to need to go into (so I won't). Still, this makes the War on Drugs over 40 years old, and in spite of the billions spent, likewise no closer to victory.

Skipping ahead 30 years to 9/11/2001, ostensibly the point of Mr Diuguid's piece, the history of wars might be allowed to begin again (at least for him). Of course, the facts of history become rather confused here. Most would in fact tell you that the war in Iraq was the response of the US to the terrorist-flown airplanes in NYC, Washington, and Pennsylvania; but they would be wrong. In fact the US, in its next undeclared war, began fighting in Afghanistan on 10/7/11 in response to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We didn't begin fighting in an undeclared war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein until 3/20/2003.

Most recently, we could jump forward to 2/15/2011 and our support of the mission in Libya. Another undeclared conflict and another expenditure of treasure by a nation that now has little or none to spare. And while actual fighting appears to be drawing down, we have as yet no idea what the final cost of this effort will be. 

At least now though, we can talk about the impact of the impending anniversary of 9/11 and a display that is being set up by the Kansas City Interfaith Council. To quote Ira Harritt, its program coordinator: "There is the realization that we cannot afford the wars anymore. People are realizing that $800 billion a year for the military and these wars is not worth the price tag." 

While this is a sentiment with which I would tend to agree; strangely enough, I find it strange that these groups do not find such selective history contradictory or that they can ignore events before 9/11 or outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one protests the nature or the budget of the Libyan campaign, or seeks to keep us out of the growing number of 'Arab Spring' uprisings in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain among others. Discounting the rest of the Middle East, they likewise ignore the failure in the strategies of social programs that have been going on far longer and wasting even more time and treasure.  

"We recognize the sacrifice the armed forces made in pursuing the war on terror. We want to remind the public there are alternatives to the challenges we face," Harritt said. "The more we invest in military solutions, the more we are perpetuating the problems we face. I think 10 years has shown us that doesn't work." And Diuguid ends it with, "It's past time for peace to dominate."  

Cheers to Mr Diuguid for managing not to plagiarize John Lennon (and for having a last name that's a palindrome). I fear that his thinking and Mr Harritt's may in fact be too narrow however. While on the right track, they may wish to broaden their perspective to understand that government solutions to problems, military or otherwise, seldom come to a successful conclusion in the wars they fight. If 10 years is too much, what would over 40 be?  If the failure of a military campaign to produce the desired result is reason enough for ending it, how then the failure of social programs?  

Perhaps its time check the facts of history and to declare peace in wars that have been going on far longer.

Two Wrongs

My parents often used the expression, "Two wrongs don't make a right" when cautioning me against retaliation (especially after I had been taunted to a point bordering on madness by my older brother or  Irish Twin). In doing so, I expect that they were like many parents before and after them ... including me. It's with that in mind that I contemplate the 9th anniversary of the horrific event that this day will forever mean to those of us in this country. 


While I am, like most Americans, deeply moved in recalling what can only be called the 2nd 'day that will live in infamy'; I am also struck by the failure of this nation to learn from it, and to commit so many 2nd offenses in its name. Pastor Terry Jones and his flock at the Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL will not be burning any Qurans to mark the event; having evidently gained enough national press face time in recent days, as well as some well publicized negotiations in New York. However, Fred Phelps and the congregation at the Westboro Baptist Church (already infamous for their protests at soldiers' funerals) has taken up the soiled gauntlet cast down by Rev Jones and is promising a book burning of their own. (Besides, this is a repeat performance for them, having already burned the Quran during a 2008 Washington DC protest.) 


But these churches and their leaders are not the only ones to have forgotten what must have been the lessons of their youth. President Obama has weighed in with well-intentioned criticism of the burning of a holy book, having decided that such protest falls outside the boundaries of good taste and may create a poor impression of this country to Muslims around the world. 


Strange that he should take this step (or misstep) after failing to comment on Westboro's other activity and creating a poor impression of this country, not only to those around the world, but to the parents of soldiers that have died defending it. Strange as well that we should be concerned with whether such exercises of free speech can be used as a recruiting tool for this country's enemies while failing to consider that pandering to people that will hate us no matter what we do (even if it's nothing at all) is likely a tool to the same end. Strange as well that this should come on the heels of a Presidential address on the level of success of this country's efforts at nation-building in the Muslim world (which many consider wrong in and of itself) in both Iraq and Afghanistan; acts which are certainly used by extremist Muslims for recruiting. 


One might also consider it a 'second wrong' for the President to weigh in on the 'Rights' of those building a Muslim center so near to the sight of the the 9/11 attack, after some of those with similar beliefs seek to build this center committed the first wrong by such an attempt in the first place. One might further consider the wrongs committed when Pastor Jones announced that he called off his book burning because he had negotiated the moving of this Muslim center, only to have it announced by the Imam Muhammad Musri that no such accord existed; and have Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (who is one of many who seem to be in charge of this project) likewise repudiating that such an agreement exits. (No wait, that's 3 wrongs...) 


While we're at it we might also take note that while 9/11 is of itself a horrific event, some of the freedoms and liberties that we have sacrificed for the sake of a supposed increase in national security must certainly qualify as a 2nd wrong that does little more than add insult to this national injury. Blindly accepting the continuance of the Patriot Act and its restrictions, living with increased government surveillance, and increasingly onerous airport screening that only provides job security to TSA agents should certainly be viewed as ongoing series of 2nd wrongs ... and the abridgment of the covenant in this country between the citizens and government promised by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution. 


The most grievous potential offense however, yet awaits. In the media madness surrounding the building of this center and the attention being paid to the circling carrion feeders currently in the spotlight, we might lose sight of the sacrifices made on this day. In our haste to grant attention to these media vultures, we might somehow forget the sacrifice of 2,977 innocent people that we remember and mourn. We could forget the two landmarks of Manhattan (as well as other buildings) that were destroyed, the damage done to the Pentagon, or the scarred earth near Shanksville, PA where Flight 93 went down. 


So while it appears that so many around us are ready to commit another foolish wrong in a an attempt that should be considered both misguided and doomed to make a right, let us choose instead to set all of this nonsense aside and remember the true meaning of the day.

Sounds of Silence

Without attempting to weigh the Constitutional issues involved on whether a mosque should be built close to the site of the World Trade Center (which are pretty clear cut in favor of building such a facility), certainly there are others that we can consider. For surely there are realities to such a project which have yet to see the light of day and voices yet to be heard on the subject. 


I've heard Mayor Bloomberg make an impassioned plea on behalf of those seeking to move forward with construction. I've heard David Patterson, the governor of New York, also say that while he does not oppose the building of this mosque he understands why some feel anxiety or even anger; and that he was willing to intervene to help the group seek an alternate site for construction. I've heard Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and every talk show host on TV and radio weigh in on the subject on one side or the other, often with a shortage of facts and an abundance of emotions. I have even heard a couple of candidates for office (most recently Sen. Harry Reid and his opponent, Rep. Sharron Angle) voice a few well chosen words on the subject, agreeing for once that they believe that the mosque should be built elsewhere. 


Amazingly enough in all of these voices however, I have not heard from the unions of New York City on the subject. One must believe after all, that unions representing police and firefighters, whose members perished in the collapse of The World Trade Center, must certainly have some opinion on the subject. We must likewise believe that as organizations representing some of those who fell on 9/11, certainly their opinion (like those of the families) is one that we would expect to hear in the ongoing discussion of the situation. 


Now assuming that these unions exhibit nothing but support for their fallen comrades (which is not much of a stretch) and object to such a project, the next logical question would be how other the other unions of NYC react. Certainly we could again make an assumption of union solidarity on the subject (again logical), which would inevitably lead us to believe that they too would in fact oppose such a project (in spite of the jobs that it would provide in a tough economy). Taking all of the preceding into consideration, we might then ask: How could anyone expect to complete construction of a building in the Big Apple without the support of the local trade unions? 


It does not seem much of a stretch to believe that if the construction unions (or any other for that matter) were to stand behind a negative reaction by police and firefighters, that a work action against such a project would be short in commencing. If carpenters, electricians, iron workers and plumbers were to refuse to work on such a job site, it hardly seems possible that such a project would ever be able to be started, let alone completed. If that action were to include a picket of such a site (again, not much of a stretch), it seems more than probable that even getting building materials delivered to the site would be difficult, if not impossible. 


Now while no one will ever accuse me of being an expert on the subject of labor unions (or much of a supporter for that matter), it doesn't take one to recognize the practical power that such organizations have in relation to such projects. It takes even less of one to recognize that the environment of New York City is one where unions are capable of a great deal of real power and control. Were they seriously to voice a negative opinion on the subject of the construction of a mosque (or anything else for that matter) anywhere in the city, much of the ensuing discussion on the subject would become little more in fact than noise. 


Instead of the shouts of protest in support of their union brothers and sisters and the cries of injustice being done that we would normally expect to hear however, in this particular instance we have heard nothing yet from any of these organizations but the sounds of silence ...

Airline Security - Firing With The Safety Off

I have watched in wonder in recent days, the changing position of our government since the failed attack against a US airliner in recent days. I was amazed when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano initially stated that "the system worked". I was amazed again when less than 48 hours later, the President ordered a review of all of these same procedures because of "a systematic failure". 


What I found truly amazing however, was the bravery shown by passengers in this recent attempt. This is bravery far too often glossed over by government bureaucrats in their vain attempts to seek personal glory or political cover. This is bravery that has nothing to do with the TSA screenings, Homeland Security, or the continuing failure of airline security regulations and procedures in this country. This is bravery perhaps inspired by that of similar passengers on United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into the fields near Shanksville, PA on 9/11 when terrorists attempted to use it as a weapon targeted at Washington DC. For the situation that we find ourselves in today is as much a part of the horrors of that day as any that have come since. 


The Bush Administration did what was necessary in the days that quickly followed, securing the country and the safety of air travel. It followed up on that success however, by subverting the very freedoms that it was seeking to protect in the name of such safety. The "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (USA Patriot Act of 2001) provided the federal government with the weapons for that protection and an equal amount of intrusion into the rights and freedoms of American citizens. 


Created in the same period in history, we saw the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in November of 2001. This in turn led to the creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to take over airline security from private companies that had previously taken care of it. Though originally part of the Department of Transportation, this government airline security arm was moved under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security (yet another agency created in the wake of 9/11), as the primary weapon to insure the safety of air travel. 


Eight years later with the Patriot Act well-established and as today's politicians seek continued expansion of the Federal bureaucracy and budget, I have to ask myself whether the creation of and reactive restrictions under TSA and Homeland Security have truly made air travel any safer. We take our shoes off because someone used shoes to smuggle explosives, getting past TSA. We carry smaller bottles of liquids to insure that sufficient combustible chemicals are not contained in our carry-on luggage, because someone got past TSA. This latest attempt involved an explosive device contained in a passenger's underwear, which begs a serious question of what new humiliations could be heaped upon us by TSA as a consequence. (I don't know about you, but I'm not putting my underwear on the belt, even though it would prove to my mother that I wear clean ones when I travel in case of an accident.) 


So as we congratulate ourselves on another unsuccessful terrorist attack on one of our airlines and as our government once more wrings its hands and delivers yet further regulatory abuse to air travel in this country and abroad, perhaps it is time to rethink the process. As even heavier artillery in the government arsenal seek to make the process more cumbersome, more intrusive, and more expensive to the airlines and the taxpayers; perhaps it is time we reconsider the failed path that we have been following. As we witness the continuing failure of the policies used to protect us, perhaps it is we instead who should be afraid of the all too imperfect weapons we continue to use in attempts to thwart this terrorist threat. 


Maybe there is something to be learned from the story of "The Hunt for Red October" (the movie of which has been on recently and struck a chord with me on this), when the V K Konovalov (a Russian attack sub) launched a torpedo at the titled submarine with the safeties off in an attempt to once and for all end its threat. That weapon, having missed both the Red October (its intended target) and another submarine (the USS Dallas) now continued on, searching for any target of opportunity. In the end, it chose those very same people who first sent it on its way. Perhaps we should use it as a teaching moment, when we listen to the words of the first officer as he scolds the captain of that Russian submarine for firing a weapon without understanding where the damage would actually occur:

"You arrogant ass, you've killed us!"

Trying Terrorists in NYC

I don't want to make it seem that I am accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of political machinations in attempting to bring accused 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other alleged terrorists to trial in New York City (though in fact I might be), but I can't help but wonder if the nation's top prosecutor sees this as a no-lose situation for both himself and the Administration politically. 


If he achieves a guilty verdict in this trial, he can claim that his choices (and that of the Administration) were correct all along and take full credit for a job well done on both the local and world stage. If he fails to achieve such a verdict in spite of his department's herculean efforts, he can blame the failed result on the treatment and questioning of these accused terrorists under the rules of interrogation sanctioned by the Bush Administration before he went to trial. 


In other words ladies and gentlemen: "Heads I win. Tails you lose." I am sure that such ideas were given little or no consideration by the Administration in the decision to bring these self-avowed warriors of radical Muslim philosophy to trial in civilian court. [sarcasm off] 


What may have been given some serious consideration however, is that these trials are likely to captivate the media and the electorate for years to come. They will therefore provide a ready source of fodder for 24 hour cable news networks, political pundits, and high profile out-of-work lawyers who will analyze the coming judicial process in the most minute and annoying detail for all of us. 


They will likewise provide an abundant source of daily media distractions to a self-styled ruling elite that has already proved itself as savvy as any before it in the legerdemain of day-to-day media managed politics. I don't want to put a tin foil hat on here people, but I believe that it would be foolish not to consider this decision as yet another tool of distraction for an Administration that has already proven that it has a decidedly Progressive agenda that may well need one from time to time.