The war on terrorism is growing in its intensity and its geographic breadth.  In this perspective, I want to review terrorist outbreaks over the last few months.

• First, a comment about Iraq.  Last week, the total American death toll (military and civilian) passed 1,000.  Therefore, some critics are already comparing Iraq to Vietnam.  However, this is really not tenable.  The stark experience of 9/11/01 and the belief among many Americans that the fighting in Iraq is part of a global conflict against terrorism have made this war seem much more critical to the nation’s security than Vietnam.  No Americans died in the continental United States during the cold war and Vietnam; there was nothing comparable to the twin towers during that war.  Further, there is no draft, for the American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are all volunteers.  And the government has learned from Vietnam.  It has sought to sustain public support for the war by encouraging positive coverage of American soldiers while prohibiting photographs of returning caskets.  Antiwar groups also have treated returning soldiers with immense dignity—a practice far different from Vietnam.  Finally, the cable news and Internet coverage of the Iraq war brings it home even more forcefully to the American public.  It is a 24/7 phenomenon.  Everything today is more immediate.  The result is often little time for reflection and contemplation.  There is no question that al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are trying to do to America what they did to the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  They must not succeed in this goal.  A reasonably democratic Iraq would be a devastating blow to the terrorists and they know it.  American resolve is without question being tested in Iraq.  We simply cannot lose that conflict.  The US government must constantly maintain a vigilant spirit in keeping the American people informed as to why this war is so critical to the America, the Middle Eastern region and the world’s future.

• Second, a comment about France.  The French government has been anything but vigilant in the international war on terror.  There is an accurate perception that France has been rather smug since 9/11, that President Jacques Chirac and his government believe themselves immune from terrorism emanating from Iraq and other corners of the Islamic world.  It, therefore, has opposed virtually everything the US has desired to do in the war on terror.  Even Jordan’s main opposition party, the Islamic Action Front, referred to “France’s distinguished position in rejecting the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq.”  Even the famous Carlos the Jackal said in a letter from prison that “in Iraq, France must not be attacked.”  However, events of the last two weeks confirm the view that France cannot protect itself by refusing to embrace the Bush administration’s war on terror.  Two French journalists were taken hostage, with the terrorists demanding that France rescind its new law banning Islamic head scarves and most other religious symbols in public schools, a demand that France has rejected.  This crisis proves that Muslim terrorists make no distinction in their war against the West.  France is learning that the effectiveness of negotiations and even appeals to logic rarely work with terrorists.  The French position is increasingly untenable and dangerous.

• Third is the monstrous tragedy in Russia, specifically the terrorist attack and hostage taking in a school in Beslan, southern Russia.  Over 334 people were killed in the butchery, half of them children.  (Perhaps hundreds more are missing and presumed dead.)  Who did this atrocity?  As of this writing, little is known of their identities, except that they seem to have been local Chechens and perhaps several Arabs, although that has not been absolutely confirmed.  Little is known of their stated aims, which allegedly included independence for the Russian republic of Chechnya.  (The conflict between Russia and the Chechens has been going on for over ten years.)  If indeed these were Chechens, they harmed their cause.  This struggle is now seen as a part of the global war on terrorism, not as an independent movement energized by Chechen nationalism.  There is little doubt that al Qaeda money and support have been flowing into Chechnya.  There is little doubt that this brutal hostage taking of nearly 1,000 in this Beslan school was a shift in the tactics of the Chechnya rebels.  There is little doubt that this operation bears every evidence of the brutality and butchery of al Qaeda.  There is little doubt that North Ossetia, where Beslan is located, is “an Orthodox Christian enclave” and that many in the Beslan community believe the massacre was directed at the Christian community there.  Tragically, the result of this atrocity is that President Putin’s power will be enhanced, which may slow down the ongoing democratic reforms of Russia.  Clearly, the brutality of terrorism is staring Western civilization in the face.  There are significant nuances in each area—Russia, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.  But terrorism is sweeping the globe and it is radical, Islamic terrorism, energized and funded by the network called al Qaeda.  Increasingly, there is a pathetic irrationality to terrorist methods.  We saw its most recent barbaric manifestation in the Beslan school in Russia.  All of this points to the silliness and insanity of trying to negotiate or be more sensitive to terrorist demands.  It is indeed a “clash of civilizations,” a decisive fight to the death; and only one can win that fight.

• Finally, a word about Darfur and the world community.  Month after month the evidence has been mounting that indeed genocide is being committed in Darfur, the western region of Sudan.  Finally, last week Secretary of State Colin Powell used that term and affirmed that indeed genocide is being committed by the Sudanese government against the people of the Darfur region.  As of this writing, the UN Security Council will not officially accept that term or do anything significant against the Sudanese government.  In short, as people die in Darfur, the UN wrangles over whether to apply sanctions to Sudan.  This is shameful, because the death toll has risen to over 50,000 and the total refugee count exceeds 1.5 million.  As I write this, Darfur villages are still being attacked by Sudanese planes and rebel forces.  This is a horrific situation.  The world community will take no political, financial or military risks when there is no strategic issue at stake.  The international system is broken when it comes to such crises as Darfur in the Sudan.  Human catastrophe on such a scale demands the world community act.  The European Union and the UN should be lining up behind the US as it declares this situation genocide.  Those same players should then demand that Sudan end this barbarous situation.  But it is doubtful this will occur.  Darfur is horrific evil and the world community by its inaction is complicit in this barbarism.

See Morton Abramowitz and Samantha Power, “A Broken System,” Washington Post (13 September 2004), Anne Applebaum, Washington Post (8 September 2004), “Breakpoint” (13 September 2004), Elaine Sciolino, “Hostage-Takers Teach the French,” New York Times (12 September 2004), James Dao, “How Many Deaths are Too Many?,” New York Times (12 September 2004).

Back to top

TELEVISION AS A DRUG

The more I observe TV programming, the more I am convinced it is an addictive “drug.”  Its goal is to lure us in, get us hooked and then offer an ever-increasing “high” to keep us satisfied.  This year’s programming is a strong case in point for that thesis.  Think with me about this:

• First of all, consider the bizarre and demeaning nature of some programs.  Wives are being traded on the Fox reality show “Trading Spouses,” swapped on the ABC version, “Wife Swap” and driven to despair—and seduction—on the ABC dramatic series, “Desperate Housewives.”  UPN is floating its sitcom, “Second Time Around,” about a man who remarries his ex-wife, and CBS is focusing on the betrayed wife in a made-for-TV movie called “Revenge of the Middle-Aged Woman.”  All of these programs are grim reminders of how debased TV has really become.  It is like a narcotic—you get what you want, but you must have something more titillating or you will stop watching. 

• Second, consider how TV is legitimizing the gay lifestyle and making it just one of the many, if not the superior sexual choice.  Bravo’s “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” promotes the thesis that only the “queer eye” is superior when it comes to design, fashion, and food.  Only the gay person has the discriminating gift to lead the straights down the path of fulfillment, joy and happiness.  What was once unthinkable becomes debatable and gradually becomes acceptable!!!

In short, television is a narcotic and we must face that reality in our own personal entertainment choices as Christians.  We can be sucked into the vortex of addictive viewing habits and we must exercise self control and care.  The last few years of TV  programming have probed and reflected the dark side of the American psyche.  Americans seem to love it and keep coming back for more.  That bears every evidence of addictive behavior.

See Alessandra Stanley’s penetrating article in the New York Times (12 September 2004).

Back to top

THE ELECTION AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Robert Samuelson, the economist, recently observed that “the central distributional issue of our time is not between rich and poor.  It is between retirees and non-retirees.”  In fiscal 2003, Social Security and Medicare cost $744 billion.  All federal retirement and disability programs now account for more than 40% of the budget.  By 2030 the number of elderly beneficiaries is reckoned to rise about 80%.  With plausible assumptions about health care costs, the CBO projects that spending on these programs will increase roughly 75% by 2030.  If this kind of spending is not controlled, only three options face the nation:  (1) taxes will rise steeply; (2) other spending will need to be cut savagely; or (3) budget deficits will explode. 

How have our political leaders responded?  Bush promotes private investment accounts as a part of the solution, but to do so he must raise taxes, increase the deficit or cut benefits for today’s Social Security recipients.  Kerry’s position is not any better.  He promises not to privatize Social Security, nor cut benefits, nor raise the retirement age.  Similar guarantees are made about Medicare! 

In Samuelson's words, “Bush and Kerry practice and perpetuate this national denial.”  We must face this challenge by dealing with the benefits of these retirement entitlement programs.  Present benefit levels imply staggering future tax burdens.  Both candidates are pandering to the elderly voter.  That is not right and it harms the future of both Social Security and Medicare.  At some point in the not too distant future, some Congress and some President must deal with this twin crisis.  Apparently, this is not the year, for to listen to both Bush and Kerry, the situation is not that serious.  Both positions are appalling and both candidates have their heads in the sand.  The American people deserve better from their national leaders.

See Samuelson’s searing editorial in the Washington Post (8 September 2004).

Back to top