| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
Guest Commentary: September 15, 2001
We Cannot Alter the Past, But We Can Affect the Future
The Honorable Fred Thompson
|
Our young people must wonder why the United States, who they are taught is the beacon of hope and liberty for the world — why we of all countries — should be the world's main target of such savagery.
It is because those teachings are true. It is because our history and the principles on which our country was founded go against the trend of thousands of years of human history. Thousands of years of 'might makes right,' of rulers and dictatorships of all shapes and forms, of religious intolerance and subjugation. We have shown the world that it doesn't have to be that way. And today's tyrants and would-be tyrants cannot afford to let that example stand.
But stand it will. If this giant has been sleeping as some say, it has been awakened once again and will not rest until an example is made of those who would murder our innocent citizens and tear at the very fabric of our national existence. Part of a great nation's responsibility for keeping peace in the world is the threat it must pose to those who would upset that peace. Therefore, we must act as a deterrent to outrageous activity when our interests are involved. And America's response in this matter should set a lasting example of what happens to those who unleash bloody attacks especially on our own soil.
The time for carefully measured pinprick responses to terrorists activities has passed. But we in this Body, and in the House, do not have the luxury of simply expressing our outrage or demanding retribution. We, along with the President, set policy and we must quickly reconcile ourselves to some of things that we must do.
Since our victory in the Cold War, we have become somewhat complacent in the notion that the most significant danger to our nation has passed. We see it in our military budget and we hear it in our rhetoric. We see it in our debates over which threat to our country is most probable even though yesterday's events should remind us once again how faulty such predictions can be. We attempt to decide with precision what the chances are of a missile attack by a rogue nation or by terrorists versus a suitcase bomb versus a biological attack versus a cyber attack. Surely, we must now realize that as the world's number one target, we must protect our citizens from all of these possibilities.
While protection can never be complete, who is going to decide which window of vulnerability we are going to allow to remain open. The old Soviet threat has been replaced by new ones that are in many ways more dangerous and more insidious. We have been warned about this repeatedly — by the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission, by the Bremer Commission and by experts in numerous Committee hearings. Surely, now we will listen. Surely now we will resist the temptation to continue to squeeze out more 'peace dividends' from the Cold War which place our defense requirements in a secondary position to our domestic wish list.
And surely, we will reanalyze the wisdom of America contributing to the proliferation of militarily useful technology simply because we want the sales. It is my belief that this is what we did as late as last week with the passage of the Export Administration Act.
If we place short term considerations, our desire for profit, or our desire to maintain record high surpluses above our national security, we will become much more vulnerable to the potential of experiencing other days like yesterday.
Historians tell us of another Democracy that after major military success cut its military budget, turned inward, and failed to react to provocation in hopes of maintaining peace. A nation whose leaders followed the popular demand for more butter and fewer guns and who felt that if worse came to worse technology could bail them out and that treaties with dictators would substitute for defenses. That country was England after World War I and those policies contributed to causing the biggest war in the history of the world. We must not make a similar mistake.
We cannot alter the past. But we can affect the future. I sincerely urge that we keep these things in mind as we consider our Appropriations bills and especially as we consider what monies are necessary to keep this country safe. It is not only the right and necessary thing to do. It is the real tribute we can pay to our citizens who have so recently paid such a dear price simply for being Americans.
Note: The above commentary has been adapted from the prepared statement of a speech delivered by Sen. Thompson on the floor of the Senate, September 12, 2001.
 How to contact Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee)
Reading a past guest commentary? Click here for the most current one.
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
