Forever wars

Will my grandkids be fighting our 'forever war'?
I apologize for being dormant for such a period, but I have relocated (moved) and have spent the last four-plus months getting settled in.
Having said that, it is not that I haven’t been thinking, just haven’t been writing … and there has been much on my mind.
This will be a short take, and a politically incorrect one at that.
The author of the above link asks a question: Will my grandkids be fighting our 'forever war'?
Simple answer: Yes
But my reaction was more on the perception that our current “war” is a Westphalian “war” – that is a war between organized nation states.  Westphalian wars are like the named wars in history, which basically were conflicts between two or more nation states over some political or economic objective. The Global War on Terrorism, or more accurately: The Global War on Islamic Jihadiis, is not a "Westphalian war".
The problem with Islamic Jihadiis is that they are not a nation-state and so drawing parallels with past wars against nation states – like World Wars I & II, Korea, Persian Gulf I, Iraq and most of the other wars in American history – really is trying to compare apples and oranges.
However, I feel there is a more apt parallel: the 300-year plus war fought against the Native American tribes in North America. Like the Indians, Jihadiis are more tribal than anything else and eschew controlling territory in favor of eliminating competitors.
Ok, simplistic view, I agree, but one that is more appropriate than viewing the current conflict through the 17th Century pact that ended one of the bloody endless wars in Europe and marked the dominance of the concept of nation-states (with capitals, and national armies and so forth).
What we are seeing now is more akin to the centuries of wars fought against the Indians … which, when you think about it, probably is much more representative of wars that have been fought throughout mankind’s history. Unfortunately, Americans (such as the author of the above referenced article) seem to demonstrate a real lack of understanding of not only the history of their country, but of history in general. I know it is a boring subject to most people, but to remain ignorant of it is to doom yourself to replicating earlier miscues. Trite cliché, I admit, but also very true. We must remember that experience is our best teacher.
So, using the Indian Wars as a template, the answer to the gentleman’s question is undoubtedly “yes”.
One must remember for this dedicated small slice of the realm called Islam, there is no second way; there is no compromise; there is no quarter to be given. It is surrender to our paradigm, or die.

Small showing of leadership

I have to give President Barack Obama his due: Finally, at the second presidential debate, he said the words that he was responsible for the events leading up to the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound at Benghazi, Libya, in September.
Of course, he did dodge the question as to who was responsible for declining the requests for additional security forces or why there was the charade about it being a protest against a stupid YouTube video that turned into senseless violence. The latter took a lot longer for the administration to admit, and had various members of his cabinet trying to fall on their swords to absolve him of said responsibility.
The interesting thing to me is that the president’s whole artificial construct about who knew what, where and when came crashing down in the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb before the House Oversight Committee in Washington on Oct. 10 (almost exactly a month after the events in Libya).
Assuming Ms. Lamb was giving honest testimony before the committee, then some people in the administration either are flat out lying or they really failed their jobs to keep the president in the loop.
The Smoking Gun
My jaw dropped when I read the first paragraph on page five of her prepared opening statement. How could she be saying that when the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the U.N. ambassador, all had been saying they didn’t know what was happening at the time.
Ms. Lamb said:
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center (at the diplomatic facility) immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
Ok, alarms are going off all over the place and no one bothers to tell the president that the facility where an ambassador is under attack and there is an ensuing eight-hour running gun battle, complete with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons.
Somehow, this seems to defy understanding. And yet, the president, his press secretary, the vice president, the secretary of state and the U.N. ambassador who is sent out to represent the face of the administration on the talking heads circuit on television, all disavow any knowledge of this being an “attack”. Even Candy Crowley, the moderator at the presidential debate had to walk back her defense of the president when Gov. Mitt Romney posed the question why it took the president so long to use the words “terrorist attack.”
It really draws into question the competence, not just of the president (who really is a captive to his advisors) but of the whole national security establishment. I mean, basically, it was like a re-run of the 1979 assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.
I know a whole lot of people have no memory of that debacle, and the ensuing 444-day standoff that basically ruined Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
It left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, and I felt it again, when I read the deputy’s testimony.

Not the CIA (nor the Marines)

Satellite photos reveal DOD installation where Navy SEALS trained.

This is one reason I get so really hacked off at today’s so-called journalists. They just can’t get their facts straight.

First, Navy SEALS are not the CIA. They don’t belong to the CIA. They operate independently of the CIA. They may coordinate with CIA paramilitaries but they still fall under military command.

Second, the assault on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan basically was a military operation: Military helicopters carrying military personnel to conduct a military assault on a military objective.

Now, to some people, confusing intelligence operations with military operations is merely a sematic exercise, but confusing the capabilities and responsibilities is always a bad idea.

No, the CIA is not the military. The compound in North Carolina was a military installation where military special operations forces trained. It was not CIA agents training there.

The question that always bugs me is why people can’t keep the two straight. Yes, SpecOps people operate in a very foggy environment, but they still are military warriors and not armed spies and intelligence agents.

I guess it is like the Marine Corps. You do know that there are no other riflemen defending our shores than Marine riflemen. Nobody else carries weapons but Marines and the Marines always do all the fighting. Just ask a Marine

Oh, PS: Like Michael Yon pointed out, this was one hell of an OPSEC violation, but then who the heck cares. SEAL Team 6 is just a bunch of wigged-out warmongers and who cares if they get killed or compromised.

Domestic terror v. Islamic: Moral Equivalence

US “terrorist” incidents

Islamic “terrorist” incidents

Domestic “terrorism” in the U.S.

It seems interesting to me that some people try to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of Islamic terrorist and U.S. “terrorists”; to draw a similarity between U.S. religious fundamentalists/evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists/evangelists/jihadiis.

One of my daughters is one; my progressive friend out west is another. To me, there seems to be at least an order of magnitude, if not two, three or four or more, between the two.

Take the “domestic” terrorist incidents that actually caused casualties in the United States. You can add it in the incident at the Colorado movie theater, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and the Virginia Tech campus shooting spree. What the heck we will also add in the DC sniper attacks from a few years back. I, for one, say: Let’s add in the Occupy protests of the last year.

Compare that to the casualties caused by Islamic terrorists and Islamic violence related to demonstrations. Please, start counting the casualties. Count the number of incidents.

Please, tell me where the moral equivalence is there now. There isn’t. There can’t be, unless you say causing hundreds, if not thousands of deaths, is equal to the number of deaths caused by the Unibomber, or the guy who bombed Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics, or even Timothy McVeigh and his sidekick Terry Nichols who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Ok, the “experts” will tell you that terrorism on the “right” is as big a threat or more to the US than those from Islamic fundamentalists and Jihadists.

CNN story on domestic terrorism threat from back in July 2012

After watching the events of the past week, I am not so sure. Sure, we have our share of idiots in the U.S., left and right, who are crackpot enough to kill people, damage or destroy property or just cause chaos because they can. But, my point is, that those efforts pale in comparison to the violence and chaos we see and read about coming out of countries where Islamic – you can’t deny these people are not Muslims, but with 1.6 billion Muslims, they obviously are not in the majority (I think) – mobs, terrorists, etc. have resulted in the deaths of tens of people, so far, hundreds more injured and an untold amount of property damaged or destroyed. And to what end?

Note, that the violence against a stupid YouTube video has spread halfway around the world, with accompanying bloodied heads and burning and smashed vehicles.

Give me a break. There is no moral equivalence here. It is not even close.

In addition, we have leaders of countries and religious groups blaming not the mobs for their excesses, or the terrorists for their attacks, but the victims for not punishing someone whose speech happens to be protected by law.

Again, we might not like this film … heck, like a lot of people, I don’t like very many films – big budget or low budget – these days … but like those big budget movie makers and those makers of the porn movies – soft core and otherwise, they have a right to do that in the United States. Sorry, you don’t like that, then get over it. Don’t look at the crap, or at least don’t buy it or rent it from a video store.

It really amazes me sometimes that there are those in the U.S. that go into hyperdrive over our lunatic fringe. I may be blind, and probably am, but I am sorry, but I don’t see them as much as a threat as people who have sworn their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to crush the United States. I believe them. I wonder about those who don’t believe that among 1.6 billion people, that a substantial minority (far larger than any of the fringe groups in the U.S.) don’t pose a clear and present danger to the people of the United States.

Not until I see the leading ayatollahs, and the leaders of Islamic countries, using their bully pulpits to denounce the violence and chaos – ala the Pope currently in Lebanon – and calling on their followers to reject it, to contest it, to resist it, will I believe that the Islamic faith has turned a corner and is willing to coexist with people who don’t agree with them.

May be life yet in the War Powers Act

President sends letter to Congress

Hallelujah! President Obama this week sent a letter to Congress, as required by the 1970s War Powers Act, to inform it that he had dispatched troops to Libya who might face combat.

The President at least is observing the letter of the law this time. Last year, when U.S. Special Operations troops were on the ground in Libya and in planes either over or near the embattled country, he thought it was not necessary to follow the law.

Of course, given the nature of the current crisis in the Muslim world, he probably should crank up the copy machine and just change the country to announce where he is sending the next group of Marines, since another two such fleet security teams reportedly have been dispatched to different embassies.

It might be that it is election season, but I am glad to see the President at least telling Congress what is going on. Now, if his administration would be a little more open about what happened in Libya, and other countries where U.S. embassies have been under siege. Hiding behind the supposed FBI investigation into the deaths illustrates a law-enforcement mindset and not a combat mindset. That, unfortunately, is unfortunate because it seems to ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists have declared global war on America.

Too bad Congress can’t just declare war on the Islamic terrorists, only they don’t have a state, per se; they don’t have a government; they don’t really claim sovereign control over any land. They do, however, have a flag … I wonder if that is enough?

Anyway, kudos to President Obama. You did the right thing.

National interests

America and the ungrateful

If one wants learn a lesson from history, then reading the above article should be on your reading list.

Synopsis: When the U.S. gets involved in a conflict, regardless of intentions, efforts, justification, it will not win. It will own the conflict and the parties in it will cease to own their own roles. Everything bad that happens inside the country involved that is bad is the fault of the Americans, and no credit is given to the Americans for any good. In addition, there is anger at the Americans because they did not automatically, magically and instantly solve all the problems that besiege a country.

If you review the history basically since World War II, you will find that is the case. It is sad, in a way, but then truth always is the first casualty in wars, civil or uncivil, and to quote Winston Churchill: It must be protected and guarded by a phalanx of lies.

Currently, there is a civil war going on in Syria. We know that because the International Committee of the Red Cross has decreed it. There also is a civil war still going in Iraq. Now, the U.S. does not “own” the civil war in Syria (even though our president has decided to aid one side against the other) and despite what some people will try to tell you, it bears no responsibility for the civil war in Iraq. In both cases, it is the people in those ravaged countries who are choosing to use violence to resolve their problems.

In Syria, a basically oppressive minority regime seeks to retain power and, so far, has retained the loyalty of considerable portions of the nation’s military. It doesn’t matter what the world thinks. It doesn’t matter what people think the U.S. or the U.N. should or should not do. The result will, in the end, be a verification of Chairman Mao’s axiom: All power flowers out the barrel of a gun. We will see this in Syria. We will see it in Iraq. We will see it in Iran … and when the day is done, we will see it in Afghanistan.

The problem for the Americans is that they live in a world that no longer is comfortable with this maxim. We want to believe that force is not the ultimate decider in all conflicts. Bloodied by more than three-quarters of devastating warfare, the Europeans are hoping on hope that their experiment with the European Union will break this truth. Watching what is happening in Europe today, the likelihood of that seems to be receding. Maybe the Europeans will make it work, but history is not on their side.

In the Middle East, new reports point to the Iranians building nuclear weapons.Memri.org report 

Again, is this a problem for the Americans? What should the Americans do?

I point to the simple fact that the Americans do not have any magic wands. We can’t solve anything anywhere unless the people on the ground are willing to help solve it themselves. We should have learned, that even though we may be entirely justified, that we might be doing it with all the best of intentions, the unreal expectations of other nations will neither thank, nor probably help, the Americans.

It is something you need to think about.

Life imitating Art

Ancient aquifer discovered in East Africa

This report is almost funny. Not because it isn’t important and good news that hopefully will provide much needed fresh water in a region that desperately needs it. No, it strikes me as funny because I read about this “discovery” a couple of years ago … only it was in novel, a work of fiction, a fantasy.

I wish I could remember the author or the title of the book, but it slips my mind. But a synopsis of a subplot in the story is that one of minor characters is this Western scientist in Ethiopia, or maybe it was Somalia, doing research on just such a development of an ancient aquifer that will solve the region’s water problems. She actually finds it, but the war that rages the area engulfs her expedition and she is captured by the rebels after attempting to flee. This is a subplot to the book to the main plot which is a techno-thriller about some US Navy officer and his elite unit who are taking on terrorists.

I don’t know if the author knew about these efforts, but it just strikes me as funny how in this case Life apparently is imitating Art.

Strange world we live in.

Civil Wars

Reference story: IROC declares Syria a civil war

The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared that the conflict in Syria is a “Civil War”, but what does this mean. Wars aren’t civil, they are highly uncivil.

Now that means very little to the Syrians right now, the fighting will go on until the Assad regime is ousted or the rebellion is crushed.

But to the rest of the world it now means that a different set of rules governing warfare can now be applied, probably retroactively. You see, under the international “laws of war” certain things can be done in combat and certain things cannot. Now, what can or cannot be done is governed by the type of conflict. If it is merely a riot or a terrorist attack, a certain set of things are considered the appropriate response. If it is an insurrection, then another set applies. If it is a civil war, a third set applies and if it is a state vs. state declared war yet another set of rules apply. And if it is an undeclared war, or some military action ordered by the UN, then probably another set applies depending who is trying to define the rules.

Basically, the rules are meant to salve the consciences of people who are not in the line of fire, because the people in the line of fire will tell you the rules don’t apply and never have and never will. You do whatever it takes to survive and win and let God and the politicians sort it out afterwards.

Most people don’t understand that. They think that combat can be fought like a joust or a prize fight with the Marquis of Queensbury rules … but that is not reality and in the real world is liable to get a lot of people killed unnecessarily. Still, if you violate the rules in today’s world, at least in certain countries, you can expect to be hauled up on whatever charges those who want to bring them bring and in whatever venue they want to bring it. Note to some of these people: Sorry but the US Constitution really doesn’t apply anywhere but in US territory. I know that is a disappointment, but it is the truth.

For example: One standard applies to the US forces, no matter where they go, and that standard, unfortunately rarely applies to the people they are fighting. If the Americans used IEDs or even mines on civilian roads, something serious disciplinary-wise is going to happen to the soldier(s) responsible if they are caught. Americans are not supposed to fight that way. Not that it isn’t an effective tactic; but it is not the way Americans are supposed to behave.

Now if the “bad guys” do summary executions or other punishments on civilians, use IEDs or suicide bombers who the flip cares. If the Americans do it, well here comes the mob to hang them. I am not saying that the Americans shouldn’t be disciplined, but for heaven’s sake that is more for discipline and control than it is because it is against some arbitrary rule. However, it gets more press over here than the multitude of sins committed by our asymmetrical enemies, who rarely, if ever seem to publicly punish their troops for shooting villagers, blowing up civilians and destroying people and property.

So, as far as Syria goes now, the wise folk in Europe sitting back in their ivy-covered halls of the International Criminal Court can feel good about doing really nothing to stop the obscenity that is what is going on in Syria.

Nope, no matter who wins, there will be some bureaucrats, jurists and lawyers in The Hague lining up to prosecute whomever they don’t like for possible war crimes.

Well, I have a message for these people: War is a crime.

No, war is not a crime, nor is it moral. It IS amoral. Moral and immoral things can be done during wars, but by and large war is simply amoral. In reality, it simply is the slaughter of large numbers of people, combatants, non-combatants, civilians and illegal combatants on a large scale, usually on a mass industrial scale using some pretty horrific ways to die.

While wars will have to be fought, at least by those who wish to be free of oppression, the most moral thing that can be done in war is to use, as Pappy told me about getting into a fight, any and all means necessary to bring it to an end. That is the important thing; to get it over as quickly as possible and hopefully with as little blood split (on your side) as possible.

And in war, one must remember that the battle isn’t over until some poor slug of an infantryman is standing over the enemy with his bayonet-tipped rifle pointed at the enemy and saying in no uncertain terms: The battle is over now, you understand.

Unfortunately, Mister Rumsfeld, Mister Cheney and Mister Bush didn’t listen to people like General Shinseki when they told them that and hence here we are still in Afghanistan and spent eight years in Iraq.

Tribute to the American Soldier

A good friend of mine from my days as a civilian US Army employee down in Georgia posted this link on his facebook page. I chose to share it with you because of what it says about the American service members today. Particular the young men who serve in the Queen of Battle, The Infantry. This is one Frenchmen’s view of the American infantry there. I thank him for the soldiers who are there and who serve around the world. Despite what you might hear about them, all in all, they are a pretty good bunch … not only as soldiers but as human beings.

http://nakedliberty.com/2010/12/a-french-infantrymans-view-of-american-soldiers/

Skepticism

Ok, folks. Something doesn’t quite add up here.

I have been trying to piece together exactly what the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was all about and how it supposedly was to come about.

Either there are some IRGC Al Quds people who are incredibly stupid or these guys make some of the crackpot schemes of the CIA look absolutely brilliant.

First, I admit I am never going to see any of the NSA intercepts that may be linked to this, but it sort of beggar’s belief that some Iranian sleeper is going to go down to Mexico to link up with somebody he doesn’t know from Adam but is supposed to be from one of that nation’s drug cartels and offer them $1.5 million (do you want that in small bills or in opium) to off the ambassador. If I was some Mexican cartel guy, I would have tossed this yahoo in a heartbeat. Shooting up ICE and Border Patrol people is one thing, but I would think that the Mexican drug lords have got enough on their plate to even contemplate getting involved in that sort of international shenanigans. And then it turns out that the cartel contact is a DEA informant …  like great choice Iran.

Next, I admit I don’t have any inside dope on the machinations of the Iranian regime or the theocrats who pull the strings, but this sounds about as dopey a plan as a poor novel plot or movie script. It takes a certain suspension of disbelief to think someone really thought it might work.

Let’s assume what has been reported is true. Some low to mid-level functionary at Al Quds decides to enhance his career and go rogue. He contacts his American cousin and tells him to hoof it down to Mexico to see if he can troll up someone in the Mexican mafia to provide a hit man/team.  This guy in Al Quds obviously has some pull, cause he is able shift $100 K electronically to some bank account.

But why use a Mexican cutout? They  don’t have any reason to play square and a lot of reasons not to.

It would seem cheaper and more reliable to get a Jihadi to do it.

And the blowback on this hit is going to be intense. If you are going to try something like this, you better have something better than just plausible deniability going for you, especially when you are coming from the Dark Side as far as the US and its erstwhile friends seeing things.

It all just tends to make one wonder why any Persian with more than two functioning brain cells (and these people really do go way back in the smarts department,  chess versus checkers anyone) would do this without having some really important goal in mind. It doesn’t make whole lot of sense.

Random Thoughts 20

As I watch the events marking 9/11 and the controversy surrounding the pastor in Florida who threatened to burn copies of the Islamic holy book, I was struck by the differences between the US and say Afghanistan or Indonesia.

In those countries, demonstrators angry over the prospect of some obscure non-denominational preacher in a faraway country with a church with a membership of about 50 will destroy a copy of their sacred text. They protest by burning American flags, a relatively sacred object to many Americans, and urging death to Americans everywhere. I imagine that if they had Christian Bibles to burn, they would readily do so.

Americans, who thought the idea of burning the Islamic sacred text … or at least a copy of it … was not a very good idea were able to talk to the point that the pastor reconsidered his idea and apparently has decided that it is not such a great idea after all.

Still, the riots and demonstrations persist, just because someone even thought of burning the text. How bizarre is that?

I wonder if Christian Americans were to go on rampages every time an American flag was burned, or Christian sacred symbols were destroyed in Muslim countries, how that would be received? How about Americans calling for the deaths of all Muslims and then violently following up?

Yes, I know, there are those who say Americans already are doing that with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that would be a misrepresentation of those efforts.

Besides, much of the violence in those war torn countries is not directed at coalition forces as it is against local indigenous people.

It just strikes me how hypocritical it is to hold the US to one standard while absolving others and holding them to an entirely different standard. It doesn’t matter that Americans look at themselves as unique or exceptional in this world where multicultural people have been able to come together and for the most part live in peace and harmony (especially when compared to the rest of the world where peace and harmony, if it exists at all) comes only with homogeneous countries with one race, one religion and one government ideology.

But then, it is acceptable to find fault with everything the US does, both internally and externally, and to absolve others of the selfsame failings or worse.

It really gets depressing sometimes.

Random Thoughts 9

I see where Fred Thompson has entered the Republican lists in the contest for the presidency in 2008. This is probably a plus for the GOP ... Thompson comes across on the TV as none of the others do ... due undoubtedly to his years of acting on the big screen and the small screen. He just looks more presidential than the other candidates.

I see where Oprah is raising money for Obama ... I don't think his campaign will want for anything. I am not a Obama fan ... but I am not all that swept up in the Oprah fever that seems to have engulfed afternoon TV watchers. Actually, I have to say, Oprah impresses the heck out of me. She is a tremendous TV personality who connects well with her viewers and is an incredible business woman ... a tycoon in fact.

I read where Bush is asking the Democrats to unite behind him in a bipartisan front on Iraq, given that the surge actually seems to be meeting with at least a modicum of success. Note to tell Dubya: Don't hold your breath. Too many Democrats have invested too much of their soul in destroying his administration to ever be bipartisan. Such is the pettiness of politics in America today.

For an interesting take on the Iraqi front in the "War on Terror", I really do recommend people visit Michael Yon's web site and blog. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iv-of-iv.htm - read the whole series on Anbar http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-1-of-4.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-ii-of-iv.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iii-of-iv.htm

The interesting part is that he says what I beleive ... now ain't the time to cut and run ... but to lead, follow or get the hades out of the way for those who will.

I also see the Mister Bin Laden has rejoined list on the media front of the war between the west and Islamic extremism. Those Al Quaida guys are getting so media savy ... we should be taking notes ... ok, the text of his translated speech is so full holes and screwed up facts but who cares ... his audience doesn't, because like some of those in the U.S. who still think Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, they don't care about the facts.
Anyway, the whole thing is classic propaganda ... oh Where is Frank Capra when we need him? The U.S. desperately needs a new "Why we fight?" series like Capra's films from WWII ... only don't look for Hollywood to help on this one. They seem to be AWOL or working for Major Quisling this time.

Tis enough for now.

Random Thoughts 5

Does the war on terror threaten civil liberties in the US?

Short answer: No

Long Answer:

What are Americans’ “civil” liberties?
- The freedom of religion?
- The freedom of speech?
- The freedom of the press?
- The freedom to freely associate with others?
- The freedom to peaceably assemble?
- The freedom to seek redress of grievances?
- The freedom to own property?
- The freedom to travel?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government in our private lives and affairs?

Before we determine if the war on terror is threatening American’s civil liberties, we have to define what civil liberties we are talking about. Then we can rationally discuss what those threats are and how we should we deal with them.

First, freedom of religion, the right we have to worship (or not worship) god/gods in our own way (I hope that definition is sufficient for most). How has the war on terror affected this? Well, it has drawn scrutiny to Muslim mosques and for a very good reason: So far almost all of the terrorists who have attacked Americans at home and around the word recently have been Muslims. It stands to reason that a mosque, where Muslims congregate, would garner more attention from government’s limited resources than a Quaker meetinghouse. Quakers are not likely to go around blowing things up; so far, Muslims have done most of that. It makes sense to observe the Muslim community, where most of the latest crop of homicide bombers has emerged. To do otherwise, then those who are paid to protect and serve people and society at large would be terribly remiss. However, the government has not closed any mosques or threatened large numbers of Muslim-Americans with prison without charge and without recourse to judicial review.

Granted, a small number of Muslims (and yes a couple of thousand among six billion on the planet – or even less the 300 million in the United States – is a relatively small number) have been detained by the U.S. government, mostly non-U.S. citizens. Many, if not most, of those who have been detained already have been released. Some even have been documented as to having had returned to waging war on America and Americans.
Now, a brief digression: The U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the other codes and laws that govern American life are not a suicide pact. Vested in the power of the American government is the inherent power of doing whatever is necessary to protect the nation and its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. And we are at war ... and have been at war for many years ... with members of the Islamic civilization/culture/religion. We may not acknowledge this fact, but it is the truth, as the Jihadists go to some length to keep reminding us. The government of the United States (made up mostly of citizens of the U.S.) has an affirmative obligation to take measures, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to protect Americans from these enemies. To do otherwise, would be malfeasance of the highest order. From all accounts, for better or worse, President George W. Bush is taking this task with utmost sincerity.

Other than observing, what has the Bush Administration actually done to infringe upon the right to worship freely in this country? No action whatsoever has been taken that I have heard and I doubt you will hear of any soon.

Freedom of Speech: No laws have been passed restricting speech as part of the war on terror that I am aware of, except maybe the PC codes at a variety of major colleges and universities and a number of “hate speech” laws aimed at criminalizing thoughts. I have seen no politicians of any stripe being hauled off to detention merely voicing their opinion. There have been a few, whose conduct has been less than savory, who have been hauled off for doing things that really were blatantly criminal ... bribery, selling votes, etc. However, no one has been hauled off to prison for saying vicious things about Dubya and accusing him of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, not that the president and his advisors don’t probably wish they could.

Freedom of the press: After one remembers that the freedom of the press extends only to he (or she) who owns the press, I know of no law or regulation stemming from the war on terror that has been used to shut down or limit any person, organization or business for saying whatever they want about the war on terror (which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and a multitude of other fronts in a truly global conflict), even if some of which would be libel or slander if directed at a truly private citizen; or, if not that, considered treasonous in an earlier day and age. The only assault on the freedom of the press that I am aware of is the campaign to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine”, which truly is an assault on the freedom of the press because injects government into decisions about what will or will not run or be aired those who own the presses (or radio or TV stations).

Freedom of association: Again, I know of no law that has been passed to criminalize associations ... unless you want to count local and state laws intended to curtail the criminal activities of gangs and organized crime. There, however, have been no laws passed that criminalize political associations whose views, tactics, outlooks may be less popular in the mainstream quarters. Yes, right-wing militias and black and white supremacy organizations still exist.

The freedom to peaceably assemble: How has this been infringed on in the past five years? Well, I don’t see large groups of protesters of any stripe being hauled off to jail, much less concentration camps. In fact, other that Guantanamo Bay (which is more of a war prison than a concentration camp), I have heard no reports, or even rumors, of any detention facilities for such protestors. Now there was the case of the imams on that airplane who as a group were asked to deplane after they made a disturbance and acted in such a fashion as to arouse the suspicions of the passengers and airline crew. It is like a supreme court justice once said, people do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you are acting like a duck, then you are liable to be treated like a duck and that is reality.

The freedom to seek redress of grievances: Just because Congress or the State Legislature or County Commission or City Council doesn’t act on your petition the way you want does not mean that your right to petition for redress of whatever grievances you may have has been infringed upon in any way ... just means other people disagree with you. No, the war on terror has had no impact on this right.

The freedom to own property? Again, at last look, we still have the right to own just about anything we want, except maybe drug paraphernalia but that is unrelated to the war on terror. So, I don’t see how the war on terror has impinged on our right to own stuff ... unless you count the prohibition on owning machineguns and other implements of war, which by all rights should be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, nothing in the government’s war on Islamic extremists have affected this right.

The freedom to travel: Other than have to undergo identity checks in airports and screening for carrying potential weapons, our freedom to travel anywhere in the U.S. (except a few top secret military bases in Nevada and Utah where they secretly test alien technology) has not been infringed upon. Granted, you do have to prove you aren’t carrying anything that might be classed as a weapon when you fly, but you have say that is an understandable requirement (although definitely overkill) in light of the events of 9/11/01.

The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property: Ah ha! Herein lies the rub, so to speak. Just how much expectation can we have of privacy from unwanted, versus unwarranted, intrusion on our property? Well, given the technology available to just about anybody with the right price, we have more to fear from our neighbors than we do than the government, which easily has the money to invest in the equipment. Unless every other person starts working for a government surveillance agency, government usually has to target its resources rather just cast wide nets.

In our modern world of web cams, cell cams, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, global telecommunications, the Internet, we are going to have to redefine our expectations of privacy. A junior high school hacker could do more to intrude on our privacy than the federal government ever can. Given the diffuse nature of the Internet, it is impossible to expect that anything you pass electronically from point A to Point B can truly be expected to be private. The same for anything said over the telephone or conveyed by any electronic means. In this world, there literally is no place to hide and no way to keep secrets. Too many people, mostly non-governmental actors, can find ways to monitor our communications, our activities, our lifestyles. The war on terror has done nothing to changes this, other than to make us all aware that some who are charged to watch over the safety of us all want the legal authority to do things Jack Bauer on “24” does on every episode (which is fantasy, but not reality).

Now, there is the question of the freedom of cruel and unusual punishments, which I supposed includes interrogation techniques for suspected and known terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans and/or America. Do different rules apply for non-U.S. citizens who have declared war on the U.S. and refuse to honor the Geneva Convention rules for combatants in wartime? Besides, what is “torture”? It reminds me of necessities and luxuries ... what is one man’s luxury is another man’s necessity. Again, unless the interrogators are more like Jack Bauer, I suspect that their techniques are a bit of a stretch to really call torture. Besides, at least we don’t videotape our interrogators slitting throats and cutting off heads, which we know the Jihadists do. And if you call the hijinks at Abu Graib prison torture, then I think you really must have led a sheltered existence. A fraternity hell week was worse than that.

No, the war on terror has not eroded Americans’ civil liberties. Those they had before are still there, unaffected by this administration or its opposition. If anything, technology poses a greater threat than the government but the American government, by design, is too incompetent and inefficient to be such a threat.