A rchive Date
[ 11-06-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Islam ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/ryan.html
Let's meet real enemy
By DAVE RYAN -- Calgary Sun
June 11, 2003
We are in the midst of World War IV.
At least that's what James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recently told members of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal. Woolsey, a man who once spent his mornings briefing the U.S. president, spoke to the institute about "security and trade in the post-Iraq era."
Woolsey refers to the Cold War as WWIII, and believes WWIV is a more appropriate description of our current circumstances than "the war on terrorism." This war could be downright glacial compared with the Cold War.
So who's the enemy?
Woolsey described three main groups: The Iranian ruling class, including the Islamist Shia, the ruling clerics, and the Mullahs of Iran; the Baathist Parties of Iraq and Syria; and the Islamist Sunni. These groups are more illusive than traditional enemies because they are not confined to the borders of any particular nation-state.
Woolsey believes WWIV began many years ago, but it took the events of Sept. 11 to cause people to sit up and take notice. In addition to Sept. 11, Woolsey cites more evidence of the Glacial War: The 1979 hostage-taking in Iran; the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut; the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Africa; and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. He predicts the length of this war will be closer to the 40 years of the Cold War than the shorter world wars.
Why the hostility? Woolsey shared an anecdote of a discussion he'd had with a Washington, D.C., cabdriver who told him: "These people don't hate us for what we've done wrong. They hate us for what we do right."
He believes part of the reason the West is susceptible to attack is that the groups above came to believe they could attack without fear of retaliation. Woolsey described post-Second World War America as "a rich, spoiled, feckless country that wouldn't fight." Instead of reacting to these attacks with a military force, the U.S. chose to punish aggressors with lawyers and lawsuits.
He parallels this with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. When Japanese leaders were asked after the war why they attacked the U.S., their response was that they thought the U.S. was easy prey and wouldn't mount a counter-attack.
Woolsey is concerned that years of ignoring the possibility of attack on North American soil has left our cities easy pray for opponents. He points to defenceless oil pipelines, exposed bridge cables, and vulnerable power grids as examples.
He recommends the adoption of drastic and swift measures to minimize the vulnerability of domestic targets. We need to identify procedures and infrastructure susceptible to attack -- a search for the flimsy cockpit doors and poor baggage checks of the world if you will.
However, adopting swift and drastic measures does not include limiting freedom domestically. Woolsey warns against adopting draconian and unconstitutional measures in the name of fighting the enemy. To this point, we have not witnessed the dilution of civil rights that led to the creation of Japanese internment camps in the Second World War, but Woolsey warns against allowing the rational fear of attack as an excuse for suspending civil rights domestically.
Woolsey is on the mark. If, in combating terrorism, we suspend our own civil rights, we have, at least in some measure, lost the war. If you agree that our opponents hate us for what we do right, which I would suggest includes freedom of religion, speech, conscience, and thought, then you must agree that suspending these freedoms in the name of fighting the war is a victory for those who hate us for what we do right.
Dave Ryan can be reached by e-mail at dave_ryan@canoemail.com. His column appears every Wednesday. Letters to the editor should be sent to callet@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|