Orignally printed in the Covington [Tennessee] Leader; August 28, 2002
It is decision time in our land.
We as Americans are in effect being asked to support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, our supposed enemy. Let us take a look back about 60 years or so.
In October of 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt laid the mantle of aggressor on both Germany and Italy thereby in effect putting Japan in the barrel with Nazis and Fascists (Japan had signed a treaty with Germany and Italy). Roosevelt said, "We are adopting such measures as will minimize our risk of involvement...." Roosevelt's intention was made clear when the United States joined in with the League of Nations (to which we did not belong) in censuring Japan. Our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, felt our interest in China did not risk war with Japan. For the next several years our relationship with Japan deteriorated and in the minds of the military group who controlled the Emperor of Japan, we were the bad guys and about to do them harm.
In no way will the average World War II veteran give the Japanese a pass on what happened December 7, 1941. However, in the minds of those controlling the Japanese government, there was not a choice but to strike us first. Do we want to follow that same morally bankrupt approach in our dealings with Iraq?
The people at the top of our government, with the exception of the Secretary of State Colin Powell, are devoid of any combat experience. One might construe the present attempt by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Vice-president to fight a war as "wannabe's" trying to win their spurs. The President spent the Vietnam years jumping in and out of the National Guard, Rumsfeld drove a Navy plane during the in-between years and Cheney copped out on an education and a parental deferment. In fairness, Senator Tom Daschle and Congressman Richard Gephardt are in the same boat.
No one in their right mind would condone the events of Sept. 11, 2001, but the question is now, how do we protect ourselves and punish the criminals while maintaining the moral plane that has been the hallmark of our blest nation?
Do we really want a super government agency, Homeland Defense? Do we really want one or two generals in charge of the entire continental United States? Do we want a secretary of defense that breaks over 200 years of tradition and summarily maneuvers a sitting marine commandant to a lesser post before his term is finished? Or a secretary of defenses that fed-eralizes National Guard units for domestic duty in the absence of a true national emergency?
Do we want to continue this fiasco of so called "security" at passenger entry points in our airports? What is one to think when the smallest metal object creates a scene while one will receive stainless steel eating utensils once aboard an aircraft (QANTAS two weeks ago)? Does it really take 15 people to man two security lines?
While "Chicken Little" scurries around from down on the ranch, important domestic needs are glossed over. The men who gave up their youth to fight the scourge of Japan are deserving of better treatment than is presently being doled out. The bureaucrats in the Veterans Administration are now moving to close and consolidate which usually means the ' veteran either does without or drives extra miles.
The real problem appears to be that our national leadership is responding to the Military Industrial Complex in spite of Elsenhower's warning. If we allow all of the wish list to be fulfilled, freedom, as we know and fought to preserve it, will gradually diminish.
As usual, old Ben Franklin has sage advice, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
By Major Bill Fisher USMCR (Ret.)
