|
 t
this writing, the United States is under attack as never before
in its history. Coordinated, murderous strikes have happened at
several of the most visible public and private-sector facilities
in the country.
Suddenly, as
a result, several facts are clear:
Those
who have perpetrated these acts are waging war against the United
States. This is not simply terrorism; it is a determined assault
aimed at destroying a free society using instruments of mass destruction
against which there is, for all intents and purposes, no sure defense
— notably, hijacked commercial airliners. Even greater than
the threat to our people and property is the prospect that, with
the unleashing of these Pearl Harbor-style bolts-from-the-blue,
the civil liberties and freedoms we have taken for granted for so
long — and that make America the unique and great nation it
is — may never be quite the same.
The
fight that has now come to our land is the same one Israel has been
fighting for many years. Its perpetrators may or may not be exactly
the same. My own guess — which can only be a guess in the absence
of an uncontradicted declaration of responsibility — is that
this violence has been wrought by Islamic supremacists who view
the United States and Israel as equally anathema to their faith,
society, and cultural mores and, therefore, deserving of a similar,
lethal fate.
The
United States must now contend with sources of these threats in
much the same way as the Israelis have of late: Using lethal force
where it can to attack, disrupt and, if possible, destroy those
believed associated with international terrorism. This means not
only those individuals and groups but also, where necessary, the
states that sponsor and support them.
The
distinct possibility exists that others may try to seize upon America's
distraction and the allocation of its resources to domestic remediation
and reconstruction needs to engage in aggression elsewhere. This
should put an end to discussion of funding our defense budget at
levels inadequate to deal with two major contingencies simultaneously.
We now have one at home; how long will it be before we have one
elsewhere?
America
is not omniscient. For too long, we have been encouraged to believe
that our spy satellites would assure we knew in advance of any threat.
Clearly, our intelligence capabilities are not what they need to
be when the threat comes not from weapons that can be monitored
from space but from small, highly disciplined and ruthlessly secretive
groups and their state sponsors. The Clinton holdovers who still
run the Central Intelligence Agency bear no small measure of responsibility
for serious shortcomings in these and other areas. Heads should
roll, starting with that of CIA Director George Tenet.
Preparedness
for emergencies like those we now confront must be redoubled. For
years, the Clinton administration downplayed the importance of continuity
of government planning, preparations for evacuating cities and a
comprehensive approach to civil defense. This should be seen for
what it was — a reprehensible abdication of responsibility.
There can be no higher priority than rectifying that reckless policy.
Awful
as today's deadly attacks on the United States are, however, they
pale by comparison to what missile-delivered weapons of mass destruction
could inflict. Even as we improve our ability to detect, deflect
and destroy those planning acts of terror against us, we must also
end our present, absolute vulnerability to the real and growing
danger posed by missile threats. President Bush should be commended
for his commitment to deploying effective missile defenses and certainly
not deterred by today's events from pursuing them even more aggressively.
There is no
doubt that September 11, 2001 is a day that will long be remembered
as momentous. If the United States properly perceives the grave
nature of the threat it now confronts, and deals with it appropriately,
chances are historians will mark it as the day the "Inter-
war" years ended.
|
