May 20, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Archives for Terrorism

This war we must win!

January 11, 2002 By Leave a Comment

This War We Must Win!
By Mel Copen January 11, 2002
© Mel Copen, January, 2002

A prediction. This year, in our ongoing war with terrorists, approximately 10,000 people will die in this country alone, many of them innocent civilians. More than 230,000 prisoners will be taken. Government expenditures will be approximately $40 billion just to fight the battle and the magnitude of human and financial suffering will be so great as to defy quantification. This war will not be won this year and things will probably get worse in 2003!

A projection? No – an almost certainty. How can I be so sure? Because these figures represent what has already happened, with only slight adjustments for the trends.

No, I am not referring to Afghanistan and the battle against the forces of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. I’m talking about the terrorist war that has been raging within our nation, on our streets and in our schools for decades – a war that we are steadily losing. This war that is so prevalent that it has all but disappeared from our vision, yet it continues at the order of magnitude described above – the war against drugs.

As a nation, we seem to be able to maintain national focus on only one thing at a time. We crystallize around a specific incident or event which can then generate an enormous amount of energy and emotion and mobilize the nation. “Remember the Alamo” and “the Maine” and then “Pearl Harbor.” And now, “September 11.”

But we find it much more difficult to deal with wars of attrition. The drug war didn’t start with a dramatic event. It came upon us rapidly but quietly in a diffuse process that entered every layer of society. It reached the rich and the poor, the young and the mature, the educated and the illiterate. And it has become so pervasive that, except when some newsworthy incident occurs, it is ignored and many of us now accept it as another facet of “normal” life.

The $40 Billion of government expenditure mentioned above is just the beginning. That is the sum being spent by federal and local governments to fight drugs and deal with drug related problems here in this country. Additional sums are spent abroad in the futile attempts to stop the flow. Drug abusers and their families spend an almost equivalent amount in trying to treat the problems. The total cost to society includes not only the costs of waging the war (at either the production or user side) but also abuse treatment and prevention costs as well as other healthcare costs, costs associated with reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare.

Attempts to win the war by tackling the “demand side” have been equally futile. The Office of National Drug Policy estimates that in 1998 there were 4.7 million hard-core users of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines (and an additional 15.5 occasional users). Those figures do not include 11 million marijuana users. In that year, Americans spent about $39 billion on cocaine, $12 billion on heroin, $1.5 billion on methamphetamines, $11 billion on marijuana, and $2.3 billion on other drug related substances – for a total of $66 billion. Those figures are only the beginning (and also give some explanation for the why the anti-war-on-drug forces are so strong).

Aside from the expenditures to fight and acquire drugs, additional financial and other costs to society are almost immense. In 2000, 1.6 million people were arrested on drug-related charges (845,000 if arrests related to marijuana are excluded). More than 237,000 people were incarcerated for drug-related crimes. (The federal government estimates $25,000 as the annual cost to maintain an inmate.) Of the 1.9 million Americans in federal, state and local prisons in 1998, a third had been on drugs (including alcohol) at the time they committed the offence and in 1997, 27% of all the robberies committed in the nation were done to obtain money for drugs.

The cost in lives is substantial. In 1998, 4,000 new cases of HIV arose from drug related sources. 130 people died from drug-induced brawls. There were 800 more homicides arising from drug-related crimes (such as trafficking or manufacture). And 30% of all the homicides were committed by people who were either under the influence of drugs or were trying to obtain money to purchase drugs (another 4,200 bodies). Additionally, the Surgeon General estimates that 4-5,000 Americans die annually from illicit drug overdoses.

Both the financial figures and the tangible and intangible costs to the victims and their families and friends are incalculable. We have to do something to stop this. Yet nothing seems to have been effective despite the efforts of many bright and dedicated people, the expenditure of incredible amounts of human and financial resources, and years of effort. Winning this war against terrorism may be more important than any other. It doesn’t strike in shopping malls or against tall buildings. It strikes directly into our own homes.

What can be done? There is no simple solution. Half of the answer must address the supply side – the elimination of sources. To do so requires a compound approach. One part is likely to be of a military nature, to wipe out the organized drug trade wherever it functions. The other has to offer social and economic programs, reaching back to the starting point and providing the poor farmers who produce the basic crops with viable alternatives to develop meaningful livelihoods and lives.

The second half requires a focus on the user end. Jail doesn’t work, nor do most of the other “solutions” that have been attempted. The answer may lie in legalization – namely removing the profit motive from the process. One can argue that legalization is “legitimization” and given easy access and low prices, it will result in greater abuse. I doubt it, particularly if it is accompanied by strong educational effort – at home, in schools, in houses of worship and in the media – again, a concerted effort that mobilizes the nations resources. But by legalizing and removing the profit motive, the incentive for pushers in the schools and the need for crime to support addition disappear. Yes, there are moral issues in taking this route. But is it moral to continuing what we are doing? We are fighting a losing battle, watching the deterioration of segments of our society and continuing the pain and suffering that this path has brought to everyone.

We cannot be uni-dimensional in our focus. We must recognize that there are critical needs that must be addressed simultaneously. The war on drugs is just as important, if not more so than the war we are fighting to prevent more September 11ths. It cannot be pushed to the back. We need to mobilize all our efforts to an equal extent.

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: ,

Things will never be the same

October 31, 2001 By Leave a Comment

Things Will Never Be the Same
By Mel Copen Oct 31, 2001
© Mel Copen, Oct, 2001

When will things return to “normal” – a thought on the minds of many today? They will return – but “normal” will be different. Some things will be as before, but others will never revert back to the way they were.

The impacts of some critical changes are very subtle. They look the same and only take on a new and enormous significance if one views at them in the light of the events relating to September 11. We are now fighting a war like none that has ever existed before, and until everyone understands the nature of this threat, our own behavior will work against us. To paraphrase Lenin, we need to be sure that we do not “provide the rope to hang ourselves.” The point can best be illustrated by examining several “before” and “after” scenarios. Since many contrasts are often drawn with Pearl Harbor, the WWII period can serve as a useful benchmark point.

There are real issues surrounding the television network’s focus on acts of terrorism. The constant projection of images into every living room in America has contributed to the creation of an atmosphere of fear and despondency. Sometimes this shows up in strange ways – for example, there are many people who would willingly volunteer to put on a uniform and fight for what they believe in but who will not fly or go to the mall because it is “too dangerous.” Although personally I believe the networks have gone well beyond simply reporting the news, there is a counter argument that, if people don’t want to watch, they can flip the channels. But this aside, there is something much more insidious going on which comes from the type of war that we are in.

It first showed up when the government objected to the widespread broadcast of Osama Bin Laden’s speeches, arguing that these could easily be used to convey signals to terrorist groups around the globe. The TV networks declined to stop, but reluctantly agreed to “scrutinize them more carefully” before airing them – as if they could determine which words or phrases in his presentations were communications to his followers. Can you imagine, if today’s TV networks had existed during WWII, regular interviews with Adolph Hitler and frequent airings of messages from Tokyo Rose? In the “new” war, the enemy can use “communications” as a weapon as effectively as they used commercial airliners for that purpose. The networks must realize that they have a very special role and responsibility and must review and revise their policies.

But there is more. In World War II, the visual media was almost entirely focused on Hollywood. Film producers and the government worked together, shifting resources from pure entertainment to patriotic themes – in the content of newsreels and the John Wayne style movies. Even if anyone had prepared a film to support enemy propaganda, circulation was severely restricted by virtue of the fact that one had to obtain a reel of celluloid to show it and people had to go to a theater to view it. But what about today?

When the bombing first started in Afghanistan, it was with the clear understanding that not every bomb would hit its intended target, and also that some targets might even be selected in error. The horror of such events was offset against the need to root out the basis for terrorist activities and this path was selected as the lesser of two evils – sad, but necessary. Such events have been occurring, and when they do, they should serve as a basis for reducing the probability of similar happenings in the future. Obviously such tragedies are news, but how should they be treated? Today US TV personnel wander around Afghanistan looking for the sensational. They interview the Taliban leadership. They focus on the bombing errors and the real tragedy that it creates, and they broadcast this over their networks. But today’s technology is light years ahead of what existed during WWII. Anyone with a VCR can reproduce this filming or excerpts from it, put it into their own context, and show it to audiences of thousands or millions. So, in essence, the US News media has become the production facility for Osama Bin Laden and his supporters. Prior to September 11, producing films for the enemy in a time of war would have been called Treason. What is the appropriate balance today between “freedom of speech” and national necessities?

Another change relates to drug usage. Before September 11, the focus on the problem was directed towards the impact on users and the people around them – family members and friends and the communities that had to deal with related crime. The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that in 1998, 3.3 million Americans were hardcore users of cocaine and just under 1 million were addicted to heroin. Occasional users numbered 3.2 million and 0.5 million, respectively. Expenditures on these two drugs came to over $50 billion.

Aside from the enormous social costs that we have always recognized, a new and ugly aspect of this trade has now reared its head. Not only are these purchases debilitating to America, a large portion of the money spent is going outside the country to support terrorism. Although not all of this flows to them, drug money is a significant source of Al Qaeda’s income. Again, looking at standards relating to the WWII era, providing funds to or trafficking with the enemy would be considered an act of Treason. Do American drug users and sellers realize what they are doing today?

Finally, in recent years there has been an alarming increase in domestic acts that cause disruption, fright, and sometimes more. On the more “benign” side we have bomb scares and internet-based hoaxes; on the more serious, proliferation of Internet viruses and terrorist acts resulting in death and destruction. Prior to September 11, the first were treated more as nuisances – and were often the result of teenage pranks. Only the latter were of major concern, and even then, with respect to those who misused the Internet, a “slap on the wrist” often sufficed. But September 11 heralded the outbreak of a war of fear and disruption against the United States. Consequently, these acts directly support terrorist aims. During WWII, acts that aided and abetted the enemy in achieving its goals would also be classified as Treason. How should we deal with people today, for example, who seem to get some perverse pleasure out of perpetrating anthrax hoaxes, or continue to act in ways that heighten fear and disrupt our lives? Those who create these situations need to see the broader consequences of their acts, particularly in the light of what is now going on.

The point should be clear. This is a new type of war. We need to recognize what it means to each of us and that our “normal” behavior may have very different implications than it did in the past. Clearly, every TV network must think about a new balance between providing news, building or undermining national confidence and fighting or aiding the enemy. Every American seller or purchaser of illegal drugs must recognize that each transaction may go far beyond personal financial or physiological gratification and may actually increase the ability of terrorist groups (and they are not all Islamic extremists) to wreck havoc on our society. And every individual who, by his or her action, feeds the flames of fear, must recognize that he or she is working on the side of the terrorist. The sad thing is that most of these acts are committed by people who don’t see the connection between their actions and the terrorists and think of themselves as loyal patriots.

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: ,

It’s all in our minds

October 21, 2001 By Leave a Comment

It’s All in Our Minds
By Mel Copen Oct 21, 2001
© Mel Copen, Oct, 2001

Sometimes it is useful to step back a bit to gain a broader perspective.

“Terrorism!” To most people it signifies hi-jackings, bombings and now biological assault. It means murder and mayhem resulting from wanton acts that fall outside of any sense of rational thinking or civilized behavior. This definition leads to warfare that is fought with conventional weapons but in very unconventional ways. However, there is another dimension to terrorism, which takes the battlefield to a very different plain.

Webster’s defines “terror” as “intense, sharp, overmastering fear.” “-Ism” is a “suffix…
used to form action nouns…denoting…practice…or…doctrines…” Terrorism then becomes “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce…” Death and destruction of people and things are not the objective – just one means. The objective is to create fear!

Fear is an immensely powerful force. It would be inconceivable, in a less-feared, conventional war situation for three aircraft, loaded with bombs, to have caused the impact on the US that was initiated on September 11. Or that one death from a contagious disease could have the impact that perhaps one lunatic has achieved by putting anthrax spores in the mail. Fear is seldom rational. It feeds upon itself as it grows and becomes endemic.

Much attention in the western world has been directed toward Islamic fundamentalism and the Muslim religion. Every newspaper and magazine is full of articles asking why Islam seems to breed fanaticism. Some present it as fierce and intolerant – others as gentle and accepting. The Koran contains values and strictures, history and philosophy. It was written centuries ago and contains many esoteric passages, some of which seem to conflict, and others that can only start to be interpreted in the light of the times and culture from which they emanated. In that sense, it’s not much different than the Old or the New Testaments. Unfortunately, I don’t recall the source, but the author of an article that I recently read astutely commented that quoting the Koran tells you more about the person making the quote than it does about the religion.

A key factor is that Osama bin Laden, although not qualified to do so, has been issuing “fatwas” (documents of minor religious standing) “on behalf of the Muslim people.” In February of 1998, for example, he proclaimed that “… the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim to be carried out in whichever country they are.” While most Muslims have expressed horror at the September 11 actions, few national leaders of Muslim communities outside of the US have forcefully rejected bin Laden’s claims that he speaks for the religion. Why not?

Again, the answer lies in fear. These terrorist groups are not small, isolated sects that hide in caves in Afghanistan (interestingly, none of the participants in any terrorist actions have been Afghans). They are spawned and grow within the major nations of the Middle East, nurtured by distrusts and hatreds and thriving on the inequities and injustices that derive from within their own societies. The focus on Israel must be interpreted in the light of the fact that, with the exception of Jordan, none of the Middle Eastern nations has accepted Palestinians within its own borders except in very controlled situations (e.g. workers to fill critical jobs). The terrorists are not “for” the Palestinians. What is important is what they are against – their own governments and anything that conflicts with their system of beliefs. Israel is a strong symbol of the powers that are aligned against them. Their true objective is the universal establishment of societies based upon their ultra-strict “interpretations” of the Koran.

The terrorist groups are strong within each of the Islamic nations. They have brought fear to such heights that many of our middle eastern allies are funding Al Qaida, by paying large sums of “protection money” – funds that fuel terrorist activities. These were first directed against Israel, now against the US and eventually, if it is not stopped, against the nations that are paying them off. Fear makes people do strange things.

Most religions establish moral codes to govern human interaction, defining and teaching the difference between good and evil. Many also believe in an afterlife, where behavior in this short “phase” merits rewards (and penalties) for the rest of eternity – a concept, which serves as an effective way to encourage people to live up to those moral codes. But scriptures cover many subjects in mystical ways that leave them open to very diverse interpretations. Two people reading the same book can select and emphasize concepts that suit their own desires and develop very different and even opposing views of the same religion. Moral codes can be reversed. And if rewards come in the next life, strictures under one interpretation may be encouragements under another. There no longer is a common morality. That’s what we are dealing with today.

So where did this horror come from? It is not embodied in Islam, although certainly aspects can be used to justify what is being done, just as the Bible was used to justify the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition. It probably doesn’t derive from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, although the frustration and futility associated with it certainly keeps fanning the flame. It’s source, and perhaps the only solutions, reside with what is happening to the young people of that part of the world.

Children have their basic value systems in place before they reach their teens. It is incredible to see what young minds can absorb, how quickly they learn, and how naively accepting they are. Modern science hasn’t discovered a “hate” gene. The first line of the immortal song from South Pacific sums it up: “you’ve got to be taught to hate and fear.”

In the US, France and the UK, the proportion of the population under age 15 is in the range of 20%. The corresponding figure for the Muslim nations starts at 30 and runs to 50%. Terrorists long ago learned how to use children. Terrorism builds largely through indoctrination and clearly, the easiest times to shape minds is when they are young, before they have developed their own sense of judgement. Thousands and thousands of children are being brought up on hate. Seeds have been maturing for several generations, and more are continuing to germinate in a self-perpetuating pattern. Over a period of time, sustained good efforts may have some impact. But how does one buy enough time to make that happen, particularly when “war” has already broken out and when you have to fight the terrorist plague without undermining your own values.

The immediate response to the problem requires a mix of vigilance and active efforts to stamp out those who perpetrate terrorist acts. But that will only buy time. The ideas and conditions that have created the current situation must be altered permanently. But values shaped by generations of teaching will not change easily. This can only happen through education that is delivered in ways that are meaningful to the recipients, by acts that constantly reinforce and make them consider other ways of thinking, and the by the start of a new life free from some of the forces that breed hatred and discontent.

It’s all in our minds – the fear and the forces that lead to the creation of that fear. And it is only by changing the way we all think that fear and terrorism will be defeated. Once Bin Laden and his network exist no more, this will be the real challenge for the war against terrorism – a way to build a better and safe world for all.

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: ,

Let’s turn our vulnerability into our most powerful weapon

October 5, 2001 By Leave a Comment

Let’s Turn Our Vulnerability into Our Most Powerful Weapon
By Mel Copen Oct 5, 2001
© Mel Copen, Oct, 2001

A short quiz: identify the significance of each of the following dates: October 24, 1929; December 7, 1941; November 22, 1963; September 11, 2001.

Now, what about July 2, 1964; July 20, 1969; April 1, 1976?

Most people will recognize the first set of dates, and those alive at the times are likely to have distinct memories of what happened and what they were doing on those days. Identification of the second set may be a bit more challenging.

Periodically this nation has experienced a single-day event that significantly alters the way we think and behave for many years thereafter. Virtually all have been catastrophic: Black Thursday, the day on which the crash of the stock market heralded the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor Day which brought us into WWII, the incredible shock of the Kennedy assassination – and now, last month’s acts of terrorism.

It’s hard to find positive parallels. Things that happen quickly are usually of catastrophic nature. Most positive events, although they may have significant anniversary dates, are the result of long, intensive and concerted efforts. The anniversaries are quickly forgotten and, typically, it takes many years before the impact is felt. The second set of dates given above commemorates the signing of the Civil Rights Act by President Johnson, the day man first put foot on the moon, and the day Apple Computer was formed and introduced to the world its first personal computer.

We live in an unbalanced universe! The creation of good things invariably requires a sustained effort, whereas their destruction seems to come so easy – doesn’t matter if we’re talking about reputations, buildings or ways of thinking. The World Trade Center, many years in the making, was gone in a few hours. So many hopes, lives and relationships vanished in seconds. And now one of mankind’s unique creations is being threatened.

The “American way of life” is a phrase that has been used so often and in so many different ways that it has almost been trivialized. It’s not easy to define, because most Americans live very different lives – but that, in itself, is part of the definition. Most Americans, until recently, have taken it for granted and do not understand the incredible accomplishment that it represents.

Mankind has lived for millennia in societies which are based upon the survival of the fittest, where differences in thought or behavior are the basis for strife or extinction and where individuals have few rights except those they seize and maintain by force. That, or something similar, still exists in much of the rest of the world. Guns on the streets protect shops and shoppers, homes are surrounded by glass imbedded walls and people are restricted from doing or saying things that are just part of our normal existence.

Suburban lawns flowing into one another, societies that tolerate and even thrive on diversity, mobility of employment and residence, broad access to opportunities for education and self betterment, democratic governments – flawed as all of these may be – exist on a sustained basis only in a handful of nations. Of these, the United States is the guiding light. It is easy to forget that it has taken us hundreds of years to reach this point, and a very special set of circumstances that has even allowed it to come into existence.

The imbalance mentioned above is particularly critical when it comes to dealing with terrorism. There’s a strange dichotomy here. The openness and flexibility of our society that makes us so vulnerable is both what is being attacked and what must be preserved. To fight terrorism, conventional wisdom seems to indicate that we must suspend certain civil rights and move more towards an armed society. In the short run, perhaps, but only because, like Pearl Harbor, we were not prepared. But our system contains strengths that, if utilized, will, in the long run, not only eliminate this threat but substantially lessen the possibility of our facing this type of situation again.

There is a vital lesson to be learned from the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. After the initial confusion, the nation reacted strongly and everyone went to war. Everyone made sacrifices. Clearly the greatest came from those in uniform, facing the enemy with their lives on the line. But civilians accepted rationing of critical materials, modified their lives to work in defense industries and served as air-raid wardens or in other civil defense roles. Even the children were involved, learning to identify silhouettes of enemy aircraft, practicing for air raids and collecting milkweed pods, bottle caps and other materials for the war effort. Everyone was involved and everyone contributed in his or her own way.

Today neither the enemy nor the battleground are readily visible. It is crucial again that everyone recognizes that we truly are at war, that the front is everywhere and that we have all become potential combatants and victims.

As a nation, we react quickly to take up arms against a clear aggressor. We seem to respond much more slowly when we have to deal with threats of a more amorphous nature. But if we mobilize quickly before the country loses its present sense of resolve, we will win this war. A free and open society is based on information flow, participation, discourse, and an acceptance of obligations by its members. Those same characteristics can serve as a base for broad initiatives that, in the long run, will substantially reduce the development and spread of terrorism. Though totally different in content, the effort should be similar to the massive munitions and mobilization programs of WWII. Maintaining this resolve and moving the nation forward with these programs should be a key priority for the President and his new Secretary of the Office of Homeland Security. And I believe if programs such as the following were developed, we will emerge from this trial a much stronger nation than we were before it began:

a) Our schools need to discuss specifically the key strengths of our society, why our freedoms are important, what it took to get them and all their vulnerabilities (from internal as well as external sources). Children need to be familiar with terrorist patterns and to develop a sense of alertness to what is going on around them in much the same manner that schools today deal with issues relating to child molestation. (Similar programs are also needed on the media, addressed to the adult population.)
b) Schools also need programs to help children to understand differences and see people as individuals rather than categorize them by the way they look or are named. We must never allow ourselves to revert back to the treatment given to Japanese Americans during WWII.
c) School curricula (and media programs) must place more emphasis on understanding different cultures, political and economic systems and religions (as contrasted with “religious education”), and on geography and general world conditions.
d) We need to restore faith in the law enforcement authorities at various levels, so that there is mutual respect and communication flows in both directions.
e) We need greater openness on the part of the government regarding terrorist threats and what can be done to avoid them.
f) An finally, we need a foreign (and domestic) policy that allows us to reach out to help people around the world – with as few strings as possible – to share some of the benefits that the American Way of Life has allowed us to generate.

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With:

The power to win this war lies within us!

September 21, 2001 By Leave a Comment

The Power to Win this War Lies Within Us!
By Mel Copen September 21, 2001
© Mel Copen, Sept, 2001

Shortly after the nightmarish events of September 11, a friend indicated that he was looking forward to my next column – expecting that it would deal with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. At the time I thought that so much would have been said by the time this column appeared in print that it was unlikely that I would have much new to add. Furthermore, given the horror of what had occurred, I thought it would be difficult if not impossible to adhere to my desire to write in either a positive or a constructive vein.

I was surprised, subsequently, by the number of similar comments that I received via email, telephone calls or in conversations. I decide to write on this subject partly because it is obviously uppermost on everyone’s mind and any other subject seems insignificant by comparison. More importantly, so much has been said about so many related things that several extremely critical points are not getting the attention they deserve. And most critically, recognition of these points can help us win the war against terrorism.

First, many people believe that the terrorist aims were focused on the deaths and the destruction they caused at the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon and other possible targets. I don’t think so!

Second, we hear comparisons with Pearl Harbor. These include the concerns attributed to Admiral Yamamoto in one movie as, “We have woken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve,” and a sense of the nation “coming together” in the face of a common enemy. I pray that the latter will happen as it did in World War II but despite the candles, the flags and the bipartisan support of the President, I am worried that it can not and will not – unless we clearly understand the differences.

And finally I have heard many statements to the effect that “the terrorists don’t understand us and the way we react.” I wish that this were so. But again, I’m afraid that they may know us better than we know ourselves.

In his speech to Congress and the Nation last Thursday, President Bush said of the key terrorist organization: “its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.” Then later: “These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends.” The destruction and death that occurred in NY and Washington were not the objectives. They were a means to achieve a much broader goal – to undermine the way this nation thinks and behaves, and perhaps to incite hasty retaliation that would alienate us from much of the world that would otherwise be supportive (and here the President has wisely let them fail).

The widespread fear that additional terrorist cells may be plotting similar actions has resulted in a sharp decline in airline traffic, the curtailment of functions (e.g. sporting events) that would provide terrorist targets, and a general sense of fear that has gripped much of the nation. The ripple effect has staggered our economy and is already changing the way people think about living their lives. If we continue in this pattern, the terrorists will succeed – as they seem to have done so far.

Many people have already identified a critical difference between the events of September 11 and Pearl Harbor – in that case we knew who we were fighting, and why. However, there are at least two other differences that are extremely significant. Prior to this time, wars were fought by the military, employing military weaponry, largely aimed at military targets. Today civilians are the soldiers, everything has become a potential weapon, and any traditional rules of warfare no longer apply. Each of us has become a combatant, fighting a war that knows no boundaries in time, space or form. As in the time of Pearl Harbor, people have volunteered to enlist, to give their lives if they must to defend freedom and democracy. But now something else is needed. The attack is not primarily on bodies, although it might appear so. It is on our state of mind.

The battle needs to be fought not only by soldiers carrying guns on the front lines, but also by people reaffirming their faith in what America has become over the last several centuries. That’s a totally new concept in warfare. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if, realizing that, every “citizen soldier” had put $100 into the stock-market when it had opened a week ago Monday? Instead, the terrorists have, at least temporarily, convinced people to get their money out while they can – leading to a downward spiral in this “fear factor” as billions of dollars of capitalization vanish, as companies lay off employees, as consumers become despondent, as retirees worry about their futures. Have the terrorists succeeded? The terrible blow they dealt to NY and Washington has disrupted the economy and shaken us to the core. Worse than that, they seem to have anticipated exactly how we would react. There are reports that prior to the atrocities, substantial short sales took place in Europe and Asia of stocks that would be hit the hardest (those involved in insurance and air traffic). So not only has our behavior provided the disruption they intended, it might even be bankrolling their future attempts to add to the chaos they have already created.

Generally, things have value only because we believe they have value. The stock market and the economy are like that. It is also true of our freedoms and beliefs. The terrorists know what they are doing. They are fighting us on a psychological level while we are focused elsewhere. Obviously, we must strike back to eliminate this threat. But we must also protect the most vital objective – our state of mind. We can yield and they win. Or we can fight back, not only with guns and bombs, but in the way we act to preserve our values. We can give in and give the terrorists victory, or we can fight back and win this war. The military, obviously, will play an important role in stamping out the threat for the future, but it is only by our actions that this war will be won or lost. The end result lies with us.

Success requires special diligence, given the fact that there are fanatics around, possibly on our soil but definitely elsewhere, bent on spreading more chaos. It requires discipline, to carry on with full faith in the future and faith in the authorities to respond appropriately. For example, the risk of flying on a planned business or vacation trip today has to be much less than the risk of taking up a gun and heading to the front lines, and by so doing we can all contribute to winning this war. And it requires dedication to support our government and legal authorities in an unrelenting war against terrorism, in all forms and wherever it may occur.

The sacrifices needed today very different from those of the past. They require that we live our lives they way they should be lived – as free people, respecting the rights of others, “with liberty and justice for all,” despite the threats. What is being challenged is a fundamental belief of the founding fathers which has made our nation what it is today – the belief that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Again, it is within each of us to win or lose this war.

Filed Under: Uncommon Sense Tagged With: ,