If It Happens Again

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."

- William T. Sherman (1820-1891), U.S. Civil War Union General

None of us like to think of the possibility of another 9/11-type attack occurring in our country. Most of us have stored the memories of what happened on September 11, 2001, into some recess of our brain that we try not to access any more than we have to. I believe that most of us realize that we remain vulnerable despite the precautions we have taken, but we cling to the, perhaps false, hope that 9/11 was a moment in time that won't be repeated in our lifetime.

Something keeps gnawing at us, though, and we find ourselves wondering if the next newsflash will bring word of another heinous deed committed by terrorists somewhere in our country. Can't happen, you may say. All the Islamic extremists are focusing their murderous intentions on our soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're too busy over there to be able to plan anything over here.

Yes, they're over there--but they're over here too. And they're not only kneeling on their prayer mats, they're actively planning ways to kill as many of us as they can. And what if they're successful? What if they kill another 3,000, 30,000 or, God help us, another 300,000 innocent souls? What will we do? How will we retaliate? Who will we retaliate against?

Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, makes some observations about our experts' belief that such an attack is inevitable in his essay "ANOTHER 9/11?"

"Almost daily we are assured that another attack on the homeland commensurate with 9/11 is inevitable...Our experts weighed in over the 4th of July weekend and seemed to disagree only over the method of mass murder to come...We talk endlessly about 'they' without ever specifying exactly who 'they' really are who are planning to butcher us at home...While we speculate idly about the nature of the attack to come, and the inability of our homeland-security forces to stop it, very few talk about what we should do post-facto if the promised disaster actually transpires."

He suggests that when your enemies know what your response will be if they attack you, as they did in the Cold War, it can help create deterrence:

"...our silence is almost surreal given the standard past American policy in the Cold War of quietly announcing that a Soviet first strike on the United States would result immediately in massive retaliation...in the absence of any better strategy, Mutually Assured Destruction kept the peace for 50 years and prevented millions of Americans from being incinerated."

Hanson recognizes that our enemy today is totally unlike the one we confronted from the 1950's through the 1980's. We knew who the Soviets were and we knew where to find them. How do you retaliate against the shadowy foe we face today?

"So what would the United States do the next time we are hit? Strike who or what--and where, when and how? The problem with the likes of a supposedly nation-less bin Laden, Zarkawi, or their copy-catters, we are told, is that they are like metastasizing brain tumors whose ganglia are deeply embedded in the surrounding tissue. Surgery or chemotherapy often kills the host as well as the cancer. They and their stealthy patrons both know and count on just that ambiguity and imprecision.

Thus the genius of the jihadists is that they provide psychological rewards on the cheap for millions in the Arab Street without costs, and in turn thrive on 'credible deniability' of their tacit hosts. They smirk that postmodern Western liberality precludes Shermanesque collective punishment against the pre-modern. After all, a Christiane Amanpour can be at the front in 24 hours before a live 60-million-strong audience to yell to U.S. troops on patrol 'Don't step on that child!' But do they also know that another 9/11 would throw such restraint out the window?"

Hanson suggests that these killers cannot carry out large attacks without the direct aid of host nations such as Syria, Iran, Lebanon and secret elements within Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and other countries. Even as their governments disassociate themselves from the murder of our citizens, many of them are aiding and abetting those who would do us harm. These countries, then, would be the targets of our retaliation for another 9/11, and Hanson feels they should understand that in no uncertain terms:

"The key for the United States...is to convey the message that if there should be a repeat of 9/11, the United States will hold any countries responsible who are proved to have aided or sheltered any of the guilty.

We should be clear about a proper response now and inform the appropriate parties exactly of the real damage they should expect--and it won't be moral fuzziness about guilt over endemic poverty, ancient support for the shah, past Aramco antics, the misery of the Arab Street, and all the other bottled causes and complaints that the Middle East counts on for its accustomed pass from a supposedly neurotic, decadent, and self-loathing West."

There's a lot more. I would suggest you read the whole thing. And while you're doing that, pretend that you are our president, or a member of congress, or secretary of defense and you're trying to decide how we should respond if we're attacked again. We should have a plan, shouldn't we? Actually, we probably do, and it could have more terrible consequences than what Hanson suggests. Can you think of a better way? One that would deter future acts of aggression, or in the event of another attack, punish the perpetrators and those who aided them?