Uncivil Liberties (32 page)

A startled look on his face, the senator responded. “What does my spiritual leaning have to do with my question, Mr. Secretary,” he said, his voice now challenging.

“Everything, Senator. May I ask the question again? Do you believe in God? Any god?”

“Let’s assume for the sake of our conversation that I do not. How would you answer the question?” Wright asked.

“Given the content of our meeting today, and the time frame, I’ll try to provide a summary answer. Diplomats, including those in our State Department, believe that any two reasonable parties can sit down and find mutual agreement about some, if not all, of the issues on the table. Compromise is the result. But my theory about our current adversary varies from that premise. If the diplomat in question is not a man of faith, and by faith, I mean someone who believes in God, he will never understand this particular enemy. Our jihadist enemy is not seeking more land, more gold, or more power. He is seeking one thing: for every living human on earth to confess that Mohammed is the prophet and Islam is the only way to heaven. He will not compromise with us, or anyone, because, from his perspective, there is no compromise with God’s commandments. God has told him to convert everyone to Islam or kill him. It doesn’t matter if we believe that God said no such thing—the jihadist
does
believe it. No equivocation. A man, or a diplomat, who is not a man of faith will not understand that. It is not a logical or rational issue which can be negotiated. For that reason, diplomacy really doesn’t matter, because our jihadist enemy is not seeking to compromise. Even another man of faith is doomed to failure because, again in the eyes of the jihadist, the other man’s faith is misplaced. But at least another man of faith will
understand
the enemy, whereas someone who has no faith in God cannot.”

Wright was silent for a moment, and then spoke. “Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That’s all I have this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

“Are there any other questions for Secretary Austin before we begin? Hearing none, the floor is yours, Mr. Secretary.”

Speaking without notes or prepared text, Austin took a drink of water and began. “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I offer my appreciation for your invitation this morning to present my thoughts on the proposal currently under review by this committee. My comments today are not in written form and are delivered to your committee ‘
in camera
.’ They are not for publication, merely for consideration as you ponder the merits of this proposal. In addition, I would like to state initially that my thoughts will differ significantly from those of General Wainscott, who has recommended approval. However, I understand his position and his advocacy of this proposal. He is tasked with defending America, domestically and internationally. I cannot fault his position, but merely point out some of the inherent difficulties that would be associated with adoption of the SI proposal in its domestic application.

“Winston Churchill once said, ‘
America will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other options.’
I think we are once again in that position. We are sorting through the options and, hopefully, it will not take us too long, or be too late, when we finally arrive at the right decision. Another of history’s leaders, closer to home, made more succinct remarks when he addressed the military’s propensity to ‘fight the last war’ again. In 1961, President John Kennedy was preparing to establish the special operations force that became the famous Green Berets. He chastised the military leadership, reminding them that we faced ‘
. . . another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by evading and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him.’

“Most military flag officers continue to prepare to fight the last war again. That is a well-known concept. The outstanding land battle victory in Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003 seemed to confirm the validity of that preparation, a fixed piece, open field army on army. However, in the latter example, we were absolutely unprepared for the insurgency that followed. That failure was uncalled for, since there was plenty of historical precedent. The French underground after German occupation, aided by the US and British Jedburgh teams. The Norwegian underground which worked with the British. They each were successful to the extent they were willing to have innocent civilians executed for their attacks.

“There isn’t an army in the world that thinks it can stand up to the USA on the traditional battlefield. But they also know that we have no defense against one man and a suitcase bomb. With that premise, let me address the merits of the proposal before this committee.

“As a career military man only recently entering the political arena, I can see much merit in the proposal before the committee, especially in light of the roving band of terrorists ravaging America at present. Indeed, had some of the law enforcement retention authority been available to our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, we might have made quicker strides.”

Austin paused for a moment, looking briefly at Senator McKenzie, who was sitting on the far left of the dais.

“America is often accused of being populated by a soft, weak people. Granted, we do not foster the Spartan lifestyle. Few of us are in daily training for the Olympics. And we tend to be self-indulgent in peaceful times. Yet in every instance where America has been in peril, our young men, and now even our young women, have risen to the occasion. They have become tougher, more prepared, and equal to the challenge. They have learned, as my Marine associate, General Connor, has quoted on more than one occasion, that true toughness is more mental than physical. Our young people find the way to acquire that mental strength and to persevere.

“We have demonstrated in adequate historical example that we do not need to raise Hitler Youth from the cradle in order to have a strong defensive force. Yet our personal indulgence, as it is often called, is not prohibitive of strength. I will grant you that many in our society would prefer that someone else’s son stand on the wall and protect us. Not all are willing to share the burden. But our volunteer military has proven that many accept their duty to America, despite the multiple combat tours they must endure to fill the requirement others have forsaken.

“Our people also know that if they disagree strongly enough with our national policies, they can throw all of you out of office at the next election. We usually don’t,” he chuckled,” but we can if we so choose.”

Senator Culpepper leaned forward in his seat and smiled at Austin. “We are glad this morning, Mr. Secretary, that your testimony is in closed session and will
not
be provided to the press,” he quipped to laughter around the dais.

“Thank you, Senator. I was not, of course, speaking of anyone on this particularly astute and illustrious committee.” More laughter.

“History is replete with authoritarian and permissive societies. Which ones have been successful and which have succumbed? As we might imagine, the answer is not all of one and none of the other. When foreign nations threaten the interest of the United States, many say diplomacy is the answer. ‘Peace with Honor’ in 1939 England resulted in World War II. Leninist and Stalinist Russia led to three quarters of a century of repression, fratricide, economic failure and eventual collapse. Hitlerian Germany brought the world to the brink of doom in search of the master race, nearly eliminating another culture they considered inferior.

“Most democratically minded governments, which are generally consensual and incremental in nature, are slow to confront an enemy, but, once aroused, they have been very successful in defeating them. And now the enemy has come to our shores. Since the end of the War of 1812, America has been fortunate to fight our enemies abroad, yet now we are faced with an invasion of terrorists. How do we deal with that? How shall we restrain these terrorists without reducing the freedoms our people enjoy? Are the restrictive measures curtailing personal freedoms that are contained in the proposal before you the answer? And where will Americans stand on this most monumental question? Those are the questions you have to decide.”

“Mr. Chairman, might I ask Secretary Austin a question?” Senator McKenzie asked.

“Mr. Secretary, will you accept an interruption from Senator McKenzie?”

“Certainly, Mr. Chairman, with pleasure.”

“Thank you, General Austin. Many of my colleagues in the Senate, beyond this committee, are concerned about the duration of these measures and how long the American people might be subjected to these restrictions. Do you have any advice for this committee as regards the longevity of our emergency and, perhaps more importantly, the proposed preventative measures?”

“Senator, that is the quintessential question, isn’t it? Let me address the issue this way, given the confidentiality and non-public setting of the committee.  In light of Senator McCain’s ‘hundred years’ war’ comment, and the attendant press ridicule, I hesitate to reveal my thoughts, but you are entitled to my honest opinion.

“In 1934, the Chinese communists, under the leadership of Mao, were all but defeated by the Nationalist government. They began an 8,000 mile retreat which took just over a year. It came to be called The Long March, and was the standard for sacrifice which Mao used to unify his people. General Mao saved his army and lived to triumph in history’s greatest reversal of military defeat.

“I have begun to think of our war on terrorism as The Long War. Our citizens, including those on this committee, don’t want to hear such talk. We want to win
—tomorrow.
But I firmly believe that there are children not yet in high school who will serve in Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. The citizens who will continue to fight this war, and to fund its expenditure, are not yet even born. Senator, this is not simply a battle with black and white victory. We are in a battle for our way of life. I believe in the depths of my soul that it is the battle of good and evil.”

“That’s a very depressing scenario, Mr. Secretary,” Senator McKenzie said. “Do you see no light on the horizon, some way to counteract the longevity you describe? How can our citizens face up to the issues of our generation?”

“Now
that
is what I find depressing, Senator. This prognosis is
politically
unacceptable, not inaccurate. Our leaders cannot tell the public the truth. We tell them tomorrow will be fine. We’ve become a society of instant gratification. For many of our citizens, beyond next week, beyond
tomorrow
, is too long to wait for anything. When people shop, they don’t ask, ‘how much does it cost?’ they ask, ‘how much does it cost
per month
?’  They want it
now
. The great French philosopher and parliamentarian, Alex de Tocqueville, said that a democratic America would likely fail from within, not through external conquest. By those words, he meant that our freedom, our liberal attitude toward the rights of the individual, would bring about our demise. Once the people found out they could vote themselves a constant income, that the public purse was open to politicians who promised its unequal distribution, the economy of such a society would fail. And how much better it is to buy what we want, and know that someone else will have to foot the bill. That someone else is our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. But inclusive in de Tocqueville’s analysis was the right to expect freedom without restraint. Will the security measures contained in this proposal reverse that premise?

“Was de Tocqueville right? Or is Domestic Tranquility a total reversal of two hundred years of personal freedom which will abrogate the liberty ensured by the Constitution? These are the questions before this committee. At the core of my experience, I have come to believe one basic principle: there is no freedom without security, but conversely, there is no security without freedom. It is a dichotomy America has wrestled with since our Founding Fathers laid down the basic tenants of our nation.”

Pug sat quietly to the general’s right side, occasionally making eye contact with Rachel, but no expression of personal acquaintance was exchanged. She was taking notes, intently listening to General Austin. Senator McKenzie had been very understanding when Pug had called to advise that he would be unable to attend the wedding reception due to work commitments. As Secretary Austin had delivered his comments, Pug could see several of the senators nodding in agreement with the general, others more stoic and reserved in their visible response, reluctant to reveal their position.

Austin continued. “In preparation for this morning, I wrestled with presenting examples of history wherein one nation or another sacrificed either liberty or security in pursuit of peace. Many nations have felt the strongest military assured them of prosperity and invincibility, but a well-armed battalion is no match for two terrorists in a car with a rifle or a bomb. Other societies have determined that having
no
military assured them that the outside world would not see them as a threat, thereby eliminating the need for conquest. Both examples were right … and wrong.

“America has had growing international influence since the end of World War I and has been a world power since World War II. We have often assumed the role of world policeman, trying to right the perceived wrongs of other governments, to impose our democratic values on sovereign nations. Bluntly stated, we have stuck our nose in where it was not wanted, even by those we were trying to protect. One persistent question of the day is whether or not democracy is acceptable in a region of the world where the law of Sharia—the religious law of the Koran—has been the way of life for centuries. Sharia is far more repressive of personal choice than the freedom American’s enjoy, but to many, including millions of Americans not of the Islamic persuasion, the principles espoused under Sharia are preferable to the ‘anything goes’ law of a permissive society. As America has raced around the world seeking to impose our democracy, we have often resorted to doing so at the point of a gun.