The Power of 'War'

We are at war with terrorists, the government tells us, and have been at war with terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001. Forget for a moment the logical faults that exist in such pronouncements, because then you have to explain why we entered into a war only after their attacks, and not before, when they were planning those attacks. (That's what a recent spate of books by former administration officials alleges: that Georgedick Bushcheney's programmers ignored urgent pleas by outgoing Clinton people to recognize and deal with the dragon standing outside the door.) Does that mean declarations of wars can be retroactive?

Of course the point is moot because there is no declaration of war, against al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Moqtada Sadr or anyone else. There has been no declaration of war because the administration has not asked Congress to invoke the sole right of any government body in this country to declare war. Instead, the administration would have all of us believe that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an act of war and that a de facto state of war existed since that time.

But pResident Bushcheney has used the assumed powers of an assumed war not only to increase the legitimate powers of government surveillance, but also to invoke aspects of his domestic policy that have nothing to do with fighting a war. Since when does a nation exact a tax cut, a trillion-dollar tax cut, no less, when it needs money to fight a war? Since when does national security depend on allowing timber companies virtually unfettered access to heretofore protected forests? How does defeating al Qaeda depend on abandoning an international effort to combat the danger of global warming?

“Understandably, many Americans have been supporting government actions that, under normal circumstances, would be considered unacceptable legally and morally. But, history teaches that crisis periods produce even greater problems and suffering as the heavy hand of unchecked government power crowds out civil society.” 

That admonition comes not from Ralph Nader, or Michael Moore, or John Kerry, or anywhere on the left. It's from the Independent Institute, a centrist public-policy research group that has received accolades from all over the political spectrum. The essay goes on to say:

“For example, U.S. government agencies have been given unprecedented surveillance and police powers to arrest people indefinitely without charge or trial and to intercept all private communications, transactions, and records. Americans seek security, but not as an end in itself. We seek security to enjoy the blessings of liberty. Attempts to 'trade' liberty for security can only produce neither. Instead, we must achieve security in a manner consistent with a diverse and open society, individual liberty, and the rule of law.”

However, we are being asked – no, told – to accept security at all costs and the reckless tangents that have nothing to do with security, but everything to do with a small group of individuals' worldviews. As the Bushcheney campaign produces commercials that focus on coffins at Ground Zero, it refuses to allow Americans to see the coffins of their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers returning from Iraq. It has shamelessly exploited, and is sure to continue to exploit, the grief, anger, despair and fear we felt when we saw the towers fall.

That we are faced with a dangerous adversary who has spoken of his wish for our destruction is evident. But make no mistake about it: This war is a two-front war: against al Qaeda for our safety, and against rationality for an administration's political survival.

Contact Ira Lacher here.