9/11: A Perspective, Seven Years Later
By Harris R. Sherline
September 8, 2008
Contemplating the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 Islamofascist attack on America has generated a torrent of thoughts and reactions in my mind. And, I can't help wondering why our nation is so divided about the War on Terrorism?
I was in high school during WWII, and I don't remember any major disagreements between Americans about the war, whether we should be fighting it at all, or if we brought the Pearl Harbor attack on ourselves, or whether we should take the fight to the Japanese.
FDR famously memorialized December 7, 1941 as "a date which will live in infamy". There was no hesitation about what our response should be, nor do I remember any equivocation during the conduct of the war, which did not end until after we dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Everyone understood that we were in a fight for our very existence. A fight we did not start and for which we were not prepared, but surely one we had to finish, or we would have ceased to exist as a nation. It was a simple proposition: They win, we lose, live or die. That's the nature of wars. You can't fight wars in a half-hearted or politically correct way. For all the talk about the Geneva Convention, they are not regulated by some sort of Marquis of Queensbury rules, and everyone understood that.
So, what's different now, 60 plus years later?
For starters, our politics: We are clearly divided over whether the War on Terror is a real war or some sort of regional conflict or if, in fact, it's a war at all, as opposed to criminal activity that more properly falls within the purview of the justice system.
A clear understanding of who the enemy is: In past wars, everyone knew who the enemy was. That was still true during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union and communism in general. But today, not everyone seems to fully appreciate or agree that we are fighting an enemy that transcends national boundaries, whose motivation is based on their religious beliefs.
Letting the military run the war: During WWII, we let our military make the essential decisions about how the war should be fought. MacArthur was given a free hand to wage the fight in the Pacific. And, it was pretty much the same for Eisenhower in Europe. We lost Vietnam because our political leaders interfered with the conduct of the war, with disastrous consequences.
Acceptance of the nature of war: Recognizing that war is brutal, that no quarter is given and that it cannot be conducted in a politically correct way. During WWII, Americans did not question the necessity of fighting with no holds barred. The objective in past wars has always been to bring the enemy to their knees, striking against centers of production and destroying their ability to produce weapons. That invariably caused significant civilian casualties. As terrible as that may have been, it was generally accepted as necessary. London and many Russian cities were almost totally destroyed by the Germans, and many German cities were almost bombed out of existence by the Allies.
>> Continued -- Page 1 2
| 
