I love the quip, "Anyone who isn't schizophrenic in this world, just isn't thinking clearly."

So, I must admit I have a seriously "split personality" when it comes to the "war on terrorism." No you don't! Yes I do, now let me write! Where was I? Oh yes, one year ago, I wrote a column arguing that the war on terrorism can't be won. Negative Jim pointed to some formable challenges in fighting such a war: 1) all terrorists believe they are fighting for a just cause, 2) many terrorists believe they are fighting for a holy cause, 3) some terrorists believe they will be guaranteed heaven if they die for the cause, and 4) terrorists believe in small cells, rather than a bulky bureaucracy.

Negative Jim concluded, "Based on terrorists' beliefs, I don't believe we can win a war on terrorism by invading terrorist-friendly countries. That appears to have only alienated our allies and motivated the terrorists. It seems to this simple-minded columnist that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent fighting in Iraq could have been much better spent on better border security, intelligence gathering, and covertly infiltrating radical cells."

Positive Jim, however, is a bit more optimistic. James Fallow writes in the Atlantic Monthly that in the war on terrorism, "We Win." See, this is what makes me schizophrenic. When the "liberal" mainstream media agrees with a "conservative" Republican administration, it's enough to make a person double up on his antipsychotic meds! Stay focused, Jim!

Fallow writes, "Al-Qaeda Central, the organization that planned and carried out the devastation on 9/11, has been severely disrupted by U.S. and allied activities. Its leaders are in hiding and on the run. Many of their lieutenants have been captured or killed. It has lost its haven in Afghanistan and has not replaced the training sites and face-to-face meeting opportunities it had there. Its leaders cannot easily communicate orders to operatives or transfer money without being tracked down. Its threat now rests less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing. Its destiny is no longer in its own hands."

He argues that while more terrorist attacks are inevitable, future attacks will be isolated events rather than part of a global and ongoing war. According to the article, the United States should declare victory and get on with life.

The recent thwarting of the terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up at least ten England to U.S. flights seems to be evidence that the war on terrorism is succeeding. And, there has not been one terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 despite Osama bin Laden and his toadies threatening Super Bowls, political conventions, and major cities. (And the Amish Country Popcorn factory in Berne, Indiana, is still safe and sound despite appearing on Homeland Security's list of potential terrorist targets.)

University of Dayton historian Larry Schweikart has written an even more positive perspective: America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terrorism. The book jacket reads, "Why do Americans win wars, and why is it all but certain we will win the War on Terror? The biggest answer is that, far from being a cruel, bloodthirsty nation, eager to acquire other people's resources, we value the sanctity of life more than any military culture in history. The American military has also benefited from a combination of other virtues: the ability to learn from losses and mistakes; the unique autonomy entrusted to our troops; and, ironically, the constant improvements forced by anti-war protestors. When coupled with an unmatched free-market economy, America's fighting forces are fearsome."

Schweikart also notes that military leaders document the killing of 20,000 terrorists in Iraq alone including terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Negative Jim must note that President Bush himself estimates that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have also been killed. And bin Laden and his second-in-command are still at large. Plus, Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy takes a completely opposite view of Schweikart: "Insurgent morale remains high. Overall, the insurgents are adaptive, changing strategy, operations, and tactics over time, and quick to regenerate."

So to conclude, Positive Jim is encouraged that the United States has successfully thwarted, according to the President's calculations, "hundreds" of planned attacks against it. August 10's aborted terrorist plot is a prime example.

Negative Jim, however, is concerned that 1) we are fighting an enemy who has only to succeed once while the government must have a perfect record to avoid another "9/11," 2) the London subway and Mumbai train bombings prove government law enforcement and counter-terrorism units are good, but not perfect, and 3) we are facing religious fanatics who aren't afraid to kill or die.

And Jim, who has taken his medication, believes that we are safer than prior to 9/11 from globally planned terrorism ala al Qaeda and Hezbollah, but are still vulnerable to small groups of terrorists acting on their own. I'll agree with that. Me too!

© 2006 James N. Watkins

Click here for additional thoughts on the 9/11 attacks



If you found this page helpful, please tell a friend about it using the form below. (If you found it really helpful, consider a small donation using the PayPal button below.) And bookmark or save as favorites www.jameswatkins.com and come back regularly for constantantly changing content. Thanks!

© James Watkins All text and graphics on my sites, unless otherwise noted, are copyrighted © in my name, James N. Watkins, and are protected by United States copyright law and international copyright law under the Berne Convention. Please visit the press room for information on reprinting any text or graphics. Thanks!

Your name: Your email: Friend's name: Friend's email:

We support . . . This site is hosted by . . .