Defending our country

I write to defend Christopher Santarelli’s column, ‘A city upon a hill no more’ (Dec. 1, p. 5). The issue at hand is the question of American policy during this ‘post-9/11’ period. The question is of great importance. The question pertains to our very existence as Americans. Do we pursue a policy of ‘civility’ and ‘rehabilitation’ towards terrorists and their supporters? Will exercising compassion allow Americans to understand the source of terrorism and to effectively end it? Or, do we, as Santarelli proposes, exact a degree of necessary retaliation against those who blatantly target innocent Americans? Do we only involve ourselves in conflicts that pose a direct threat to the way Americans function on a daily basis?

There is no doubt that terrorists pose a serious threat to the daily lives of all Americans. Simply put, they hate us. They fundamentally disagree with the way you or I view the world. They hate our culture, they hate our family and friends and they hate our country. Islamic extremists not only disagree with Western Civilization, but they also want the complete destruction of it. They want you and me dead – so much for civility, compassion and understanding.

Of course, some believe that we should be above violence and retaliation, and that Americans can convert these terrorists into normal human beings by showing them love and understanding. This method may work in children’s movies or in some cutesy fiction novel, but not in the real world. In the real world of actual threats and severe consequences we need to be pragmatic. We need to defend ourselves and our country. As Santarelli astutely points out, terrorists do not want our land or resources. They want to end our way of life.

How do we realistically combat terrorism? I agree with those who contend that we need to target terrorism on a worldwide scale. Fighting an unjust war in one country in the Middle East certainly will not defeat terrorists. Surely we need to tactfully target terrorists in individual areas like Afghanistan and other countries known to be breeding grounds for terrorists. We will need to use force. I agree with Santarelli’s belief that we will need only to use military force ‘against those who have directly attacked us . . .’ Unfortunately, that will mean death and destruction for innocent and guilty persons alike. For how long could we watch more and more innocent Americans die? For how long could we remain reactive, rather than proactive, against evil?

Of course, it would be great for all countries to agree with Americans, to join in our effort to defeat terrorism and to make the world a safer place for all. What if other countries disagree with our actions? What if the world strongly dislikes our methods? Should that stop us from combating something that fundamentally threatens all Americans? I agree with Santarelli’s view that Americans should not base their actions on the opinions of other countries. America ought to be the source of international leadership and action. Americans need to show that terrorism will not be tolerated, appeased or ignored. Terrorists will not be listened to nor negotiated with. They have nothing to negotiate. They have one end and one end only . . . the destruction of our culture, our way of life, and our country. Sometimes doing what is necessary and proper to defend our liberty and freedom may not be what the majority of other countries agree with. Let us protect what is in the best interest of our people first. Let us do everything in our power to ensure that our way of life is protected, and let other nations follow in our example. Let us restore the one thing that has always been the great strength of Americans: the ability put our country and people first, even in the face of extreme adversity.