War Against Terrorism Is Not Over

Image: War Against Terrorism Is Not Over A Buddhist monk meditates during a moment of silence on Monday near the site of last week's bombings at the Boston Marathon. (Getty Images)

Monday, 22 Apr 2013 05:01 PM

By Ira Stoll

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink

The war isn’t over.        

That’s the big takeaway from the Boston Marathon bombing, like it or not.

A lot of Americans thought the war — which Congress had never formally declared to begin with — was already over.

President Obama announced the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The attacks on New York and on the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 are more than a decade past, and the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was geographically distant.

Osama Bin Laden was dead.

But this war — the one the Islamist extremists are waging against us, the one that Norman Podhoretz calls World War IV (World War III having been the Cold War) — can’t be ended unilaterally by American fiat. Even if we wish it could.

Within this basic framework, there are still plenty of things for Americans to debate. We can debate whether the amounts we are spending on national defense — $660 billion, or 4.1 percent of GDP in 2013, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget — is too little, or too much.

We can debate whether to treat American citizens such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as criminal defendants with the usual constitutional rights, or as wartime enemy combatants with lesser rights, as some Republican senators recommend.

We can debate whether the shutdown of a major American metropolitan area was an overreaction to the potential threat posed by a 19-year-old whose arsenal reportedly included pressure cookers and a BB-gun.

We can debate whether, given the death toll of terrorist attacks (compared to, say, heart disease, or fertilizer plant explosions, or school shootings), our response is proportionate to the threat.

We can debate immigration policies, and policing policies, and energy policies, and domestic surveillance policies.

But the Boston bombing, and the news that has followed about the careers and beliefs of the suspects, will constrain certain other debates, or puncture illusions.

There was this idea — apparently popular in some quarters — that we could defuse the Islamist extremist threat merely by electing a president with the middle name Hussein, or by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, or by killing Osama Bin Laden, or by instructing the NASA director that the American space agency’s “foremost” mission should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.”

Nonsense. Also false is the idea, apparently common on the right, that national security leadership is no longer a necessary or even desirable quality for Republican politicians. The Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan Republican ticket in 2012 was an example of this.

Its main message was that the domestic economy and the federal budget were the big issues, not the global war against Islamofascism. That was true, until it wasn’t true anymore. Or at least it didn’t seem true to those imprisoned in their homes, or glued to the television screen or the Internet for updates on the Boston bombing suspects.

There’s something unnerving about this, which is why we talk about the attacks in terms of terrorism. The offense isn’t just the murder; it’s the infliction of fear, or terror, on the civilian population beyond those physically injured or killed in the attacks.

There is precedent in American history for a war-weary nation rising to a conflict not of its own choosing. After World War II, America answered the challenge of the Cold War.

Some may complain that the comparison with the Cold War is entirely inapt. The Soviet Union was a nuclear-armed superpower, while Tsarnaev is a 19-year-old with a BB-gun, a pressure-cooker, and a high school degree from the Cambridge Rindge and Latin School.

Maybe so.

On the other hand, for all the grave crimes of the Soviet Communists, they never bombed the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or the Boston Marathon.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of “Samuel Adams: A Life.” Read more reports from Ira Stoll — Click Here Now.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Obama Agenda Curbed by Lame-Duck Status

Monday, 27 Oct 2014 14:01 PM

If Mr. Obama plans to exercise his executive authority vigorously, expect it to trigger an equally vigorous reaction fro . . .

NY Times Wants 'Class Tensions' to Sway Legal Cases

Monday, 20 Oct 2014 14:33 PM

The NY Times and Steven Rattner Want wealth to Sway Legal Cases of AIG and Fannie-Mae. . . .

Govt Inept When It Comes to Websites

Monday, 13 Oct 2014 13:29 PM

One good reason to favor a smaller federal government that does less is that the private sector often does things cheape . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved