2 October 2001

President Bush says that America is at War with Terror. I'm not sure that I know what it means.

I'm in favor of justice. I'm big on safety. My friends will tell you that I often say, "Safety first." And I'm in favor of good v evil. I don't even like bad fruits and vegetables. I feel like I understand what justice and security and good and evil mean. I don't feel like I understand what the war will be about.

It's become increasingly clear that the Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan have come to believe that the way for them to get what they want in this life is to kill Americans. Osama bin Laden has said that followers of Islam have a religious obligation to kill every American male, whether they are in the military service or just pay taxes. That certainly includes me. Okay, so I'm in a position to kill or be killed with those guys, and it's an easy choice. Given the opportunity, I'd like to give them all sex change operations and then leave them on the streets of Kabul in blonde wigs and bikini bathing suits.

It's also clear that US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the Taliban in May that, in the face of rumors of acts of terror planned in the US by Al Queda, that they would be held responsible for the actions of groups that they harbor. Their failure to prevent plans that were years in the making from taking thousands of American lives puts the same blood on their hands.

These guys are demanding evidence of bin Laden's guilt so that they'll think about turning him over to us. We showed them plenty of evidence after the 1998 embassy bombings, and they claimed that we didn't have any evidence.

Mullah Omar, the Jethro Bodine of the Taliban, is the son in law of Osama bin Laden. This guy is a real hillbilly. We should send the Arkansas National Guard after these guys - they know the drill.

It's also easy to get mad at AQ and the Talibs because they sell drugs. 

I don't understand how any people who like eating and breathing would want to start a fight with the US.

It's clear that American military, intelligence, diplomatic, legal, and financial pressure will be brought to bear on the Afghan government and the terrorists that it is trying to protect. It's also clear that many of the people involved in that terror also want to destabilize the governments of "the Stans" - Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and the like. I don't know what kinds of governments those countries have, but I'm seeing a pattern that looks a lot like the spread of fascism in Europe and Communism in Asia. I don't' think we can just declare democracies for other countries, but it's clear that their security and lives are threatened by violence, and I've got an opinion about that. So I can imagine us sending people to stop those people, capture them if possible, and to take away their ability to do business like they do.

I'm just not sure where it goes after that. For example, does it go to Iran? In early 2001, the US State Department identified Iran as the number one supporter of state sponsored terror in 2000. Opinions vary on this topic. For example, the US and the Israelis consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization, but very few other countries see it that way. There's a slippery slope of relativism stretching before us and our Unending Justice. Is a terrorist in the eye of the beholder?

Iraq is a country that has thumbed its nose at the US for too long. Many Americans would write a check for someone to go over there and kill some people. But will the US and its coalition partners conquer Iraq? There is an indication that they've been involved with the same people who committed the 911 crimes. I'm sure that there are some questions we want answered. But what bothers me more today is, where does the war on terrorism stop? Afghanistan, Iran, then Iraq?

How about North Korea? How about Palestine, or Israel? Or both? How about Columbia? How about Chechnya? Basques? Lots of Americans would love to make up some evidence about Cuban terrorists and use that as an excuse to pick on those people. Will B2 bombers soon fly over The Old Sod and blast Ireland? I asked a friend this question, "Will we attack Ireland?" and she said, "They aren't directly involved in acts of terror here in the US." That was closer to a guideline defining the scope of this effort than anything I've heard on TV. 

Rephrased, my friend suggested that we go after groups that are guilty of crimes in the US. That's at least a much clearer guideline than going after groups that commit acts of terror anywhere on earth. I'm not sure that it's going to work, though.

Didn't our NATO allies just invoke article 5 of the treaty? Isn't an attack on one an attack on all? What are we to do the next time that an IRA bomb goes off in the London tube? Look the other way?

I'm tired of being from the country that says one thing and does another. I'm ashamed of the way that we left un-shredded files in the US Embassy in Saigon, which led to the execution of thousands of South Vietnamese people who helped our country. I want to see my country do something that doesn't embarrass me even more. If she can't make me proud, please, at least make sense.

Sooner than later, I'd like to see a clear statement of what the US hopes to accomplish by this war on terror. The statements that I've heard so far seem sufficient to exact our revenge on Al Queda but not much good past that. They seem to open a whole new can of worms.

I wonder how we can really change things in this world. I'm not sure that shooting and bombing is our best bet. When somebody needs killing, okay. But, after those guys are gone, is there a way to make the world safe for our children that doesn't involve beating up the people that we don't agree with? I hear that the possibility of war between France and Germany is gone because their economies are too intertwined. Can we introduce the virus of free trade and functional markets into unstable countries, and miraculously make them stable? Why does that sound like missionary zeal or a movie plot instead of sensible foreign policy?

Can we work to remove the seeds of terror? Violence, they say, is the last desperate refuge of the powerless. Can we somehow reach the people who are led by our enemies, and help them find better solutions to the problems in their lives? Some of those problems are old ones, they're fights over land that go back a thousand years. I don't think we can solve that by being right - which is the strategy of choice for Americans. I don't think that, if we knew some Solomonic way to divide the land, that we could dictate it to both sides and bring peace. In the final analysis, if different peoples want the same thing, such as land, and they want it without those other guys around, it will be very hard for the US and its coalition partners to fix the problem with guns and bombs.

I'm glad I don't have to solve this problem this morning.

Welcome to the ride of your life.