Letter from Bill Wahl
Politics – August 2004 – Colorado Central Magazine
Editor needs some questions
Dear Martha;
I just finished your article, “Finding Fault,” in the July issue. It takes a lot to get me to write a response, but this one did it. You qualify your article as personal musings. The problem with musing about something to yourself is that there is no one to question you. I think you need a little questioning.
While I agree with your general conclusion that violence is not desirable, the idea that it can be eliminated in today’s world needs some thought. For example, every law officer in the United States carries a weapon. This is not necessarily to kill, but rather to show that we officially sanction some to use force if necessary. Sadly, I don’t think everyone even here in Central Colorado would voluntarily obey the speed laws, pay their taxes, and respect their neighbors’ property if they didn’t realize that disobedience would eventually bring force in the form of fines, jail time, or other penalties down on their heads.
I was also puzzled by your statement regarding disciplining children where you said “Most of us wouldn’t trust a parent, teacher or administrator to know where to draw the line.” Just who do you think should be responsible? If you are thinking town, state or federal government officials, I invite you to read the book, No Crueler Tyrannies by Dorothy Rabinowitz, that shows how such government officials are perfectly capable of initiating modern-day witch hunts over suspected cases of child abuse. In the towns of both Malden, Massachusetts, and Wenatchee, Oregon, childish imagination was embellished by official investigations to send multiple innocent people to prison for years. Those who questioned these proceedings were themselves targeted. My conclusion is that this was the result of a lack of individual responsibility and our growing excessive dependence on government.
On the world level, when you mused about terrorism, I particularly wondered about your statement that “terrorists don’t have the means or the weapons to escalate this conflict and spread it into every corner of the globe. Only America does.” Have you forgotten the fighting in the Philippines? The dead Australians in Bali? The seizing of the theater in Moscow? The slaughtered rail commuters in Spain? And oh yes, our own 9-11 attack? Just exactly which corner of the globe do you think is safe from terrorist activities? I hardly think these are the fault of America, regardless of the Arab fundamentalist excuses that it is all because of our support of Israel, or having troops in Saudi Arabia, or that we aren’t paying enough for their oil, or whatever. We tend to leave everyone alone regardless of their policies or philosophy until someone starts killing Americans. Perhaps that kind of response is too violent though.
FURTHER ON THIS THOUGHT, your comment that perhaps we should not be opposing terrorism through war also puzzled me. When you said, “thus war may not be the most effective way to oppose terrorism…there are other means, including public trials; trained special forces, international agreements to expedite the apprehension, arrest and extradition of terrorists; more sanctions against countries…” I would love to see something else work. However, can you imagine public trials against a dictator such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq prior to our invasion? How is use of special forces not an act of war? What international agreements have ever worked to apprehend, arrest and extradite terrorists without the force of the U.S. military actively behind them? And sanctions have worked so effectively against Cuba and Castro over the past 40 years, haven’t they?
My conclusion is that while I see the need for force so long as we still have imperfect people (and leaders) in the world, I am not without hope. I believe the United States is providing an example of individual rights and the impartial rule of law unprecedented in the history of the world. Even where some argue that America has done wrong, I wonder for example how much less affected the people of Japan were at the end of WWII, even with two of their cities obliterated by atomic weapons, than the people of Israel were in 70 AD after the Romans conquered them and eliminated their country and their way of life, and exiled all the survivors?
Because America is the example and hope of the world, we had better be able to defend it. If you think that rational, calm discussion is as good a defense as an Army, I think you are mistaken. If you think fighting terrorism in far away countries is worse than waiting for an attack here, you do not know good military tactics. If you think that we use too much force and not enough persuasion, I think you are back in the Carter days when our embassy in Iran was seized (clearly an act of war) and we made only one failed attempt to free the hostages.
There is a time that the sheriff needs to stand up against the bad guys. But we can’t expect him to act alone or censor him after he is done, unless you are willing to live at the mercy of anyone who is stronger or more violent. Sadly, at times force may be the only answer. Second guessing is a good way to think up solutions for yesterday’s problems. It is a poor way to find solutions for today’s problems.
Bill Wahl
Westcliffe
The editor answers
Dear Bill,
I have a couple of minor objections to some assumptions you’ve made. First, I didn’t propose that we eliminate violence world-wide, or get rid of police forces, or discard laws. In fact, I don’t believe that violence can be eliminated.
Eliminating violence, however, does seem to be President Bush’s position. According to our President, we can declare war on terror and somehow eradicate it.
Second, I didn’t object to war, which seems entirely appropriate when some despot is breaching your borders or trying to overthrow your government. I objected to America’s War on Terror, which seems vaguely defined and open-ended. When does such a war end? How does it end? Who can we attack? And who can’t we attack?
Likewise, I never advocated going lightly on terrorists. On the contrary, I think declaring war on terrorists exalts their position. Terrorists are not soldiers; they are murderers, who should be apprehended and punished. War, however, frequently ravages the innocent and misses the terrorists (who tend to be young, able-bodied, and cunning enough to escape).
And more to the point, war, disruption, and chaos are often in the interest of terrorist groups, which has been the case in Iraq. In recent months al Quaeda operatives and Shiite and Sunni insurgents have recruited scores of Iraqi youngters. (But with any luck the tide will soon turn — due to violence between rebel groups.)
Third, I certainly was not suggesting that some government agency should be established to discipline our children. I just pointed out that we live in a suspicious society where parents don’t trust teachers, and teachers don’t trust parents, and where mistrust and poor communication often make it difficult to identify kids like Klebold and Harris before they run amuck.
With that said, I merely offer this rebuttal to make my views a little clearer — because every time I write about national or international affairs, I’m astounded by what people seem to assume I believe.
Yet at the same time, I realize that I also assume things about the beliefs of those who hold political views that I don’t agree with. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone who supports our War on Terror explain how they think it should be conducted. Thus, it remains unclear to me what supporters think the rules and parameters of this war should be.
Under what circumstances do they feel our country is justified in declaring war on another nation? Is it enough that our President has designated a nation as a member of the axis of evil? Or must a government have committed acts that threatened the U.S.? Or crimes against humanity? Or is being a dictatorship, enough?
In recent years, I’ve concluded that liberals and conservatives both base many of their arguments on what they assume the other side believes, instead of on what anyone actually believes. So I hope this makes my own opinions clearer — because sometimes I find that opposing views don’t seem nearly as contrary once I’ve heard all of the particulars.
But in this case, I suspect the details make no difference. When it comes to war, there are countless opinions from pacifistic to militant, and someday Americans may discuss and consider the full range of possibilities. But right now, only two positions ever get heard: either we should engage, or we shouldn’t.
And you and I are definitely on opposite sides, here. You believe that taking a stand is important, and so do I. But we have very different ideas about what that stand should be. You believe that fighting terrorists is synonymous with defending America. Whereas I believe that fighting terrorists merely makes us a target for fanatics who want to become martyrs.
Thank you for writing, though. As I see it, Americans are painfully divided on the issues these days, but despite our many differences, most of us still share an ardent belief in democracy and free speech. Also, you’ve convinced me to read Rabinowitz’s book; it sounds great and very much in line with my own thoughts on the subject.
Martha Quillen
