One of C-SPAN's questions for "open lines” recently was "who's stronger in National Security, Republicans or Democrats” (i.e., who will keep us safer). Callers weighed in on three different telephone lines (i.e., Republican, Democrat, and Independent). The host picked up calls in rotation, each line getting its turn; very democratic quite honestly. It's what C-SPAN does best to the unbridled joy and wild accolades of its small but loyal audience.

As far as the responses were concerned, they were predictable. Republicans said they are better because we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Democrats said they are better because we were attacked on 9/11. Independents claimed neither one is very effective because of conspiracy theory de jour. At the end of the hour segment, I am willing to bet not one listener had a sudden shift in thought, an epiphany of enlightenment, or a fresh point of view.

Of course the question itself is a bellow, used to fire up the dormant coals of minds made up, flaring in sparks of party rhetoric, embers that cool as quickly as they burst. So I listened to the crackling callers, mesmerized by the dancing flames of the unthinking faithful, and I thought about the question and wondered if the question itself was the answer.

"Who's stronger in National Security, Republicans or Democrats?” There is an implied measure to the success of a National Security policy—the number of terrorist attacks on American soil, of which there are only two ever mentioned, the two WTC attacks.

However, there have been others. I reference the definition of terrorism as declared by the CIA: the term "terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Based on that definition, I'd have to classify the abortion clinic bombings, Atlanta Olympic Park bombing, and Oklahoma City bombing as terrorist attacks. I'm not sure how one could dismiss them as something other than terrorism. It is important to include these attacks in the context of the larger question on National Security.

Regardless of whether terrorist agents are home grown or imported, they have a few things in common. They are convinced 1) some egregious assault has been perpetrated by the U.S. government on their rights or their beliefs or their faith, and 2) killing people is the only option available to them to make their point. In short, they live in a David and Goliath fantasy with one significant difference. David is capable of slinging stones of mass destruction now.

Given our porous borders, given our freedoms, given our diversity in people, given our wealth, given our impatience, given our unrivaled position of power in the world, given our addiction-like dependence upon the resources of troubled countries, given the mountains of Pakistan or the vast wilderness of the Northwest, given cell phones and wireless internet access, given all of this, short of locking everyone up, National Security can only do so much.

Yes, tighter security along all our borders is a wise venture. Yes, tighter security at airports is an important pursuit. Yes, sharing information among our various national securi

ty agencies is critical. Yes, chasing and disrupting Bin Laden in the rugged terrain of Pakistan is an important undertaking. Yes, surveillance of hate groups and extremists within the U.S. is a useful tool. Yes, a refreshed Patriot Act is an important instrument. Yes all these things are critical to uprooting future dangers.

On the other hand, the faulty reasoned Iraq War and our contrived policy of building an island of democracy in the Middle East is both American arrogance at its naïve worst and detrimental to any honest attempt to draw hearts and minds towards loftier heights. And let's not underestimate the contention the war has created at home, slowing progress on many of the more important fronts.

In addition to the misguided Iraq policy, using the increasingly meaningless words "war on terror” as a drumbeat to over-extend the power of the President or to rein in certain freedoms or to give fodder to Howard Dean's latest diatribe or to open up the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling for that matter, is another hindrance in protecting our homeland. "War on terror” has become about as definitive as "Threat Level Orange”. Who cares anymore?

The fact is we are doing some smart things and some dumb things. But even if we did all the right things the right way at the right time, attacks still might occur. And the timing won't be determined by who is wearing the watch.

Asking a question like "who's better at National Security” or "are we safer” and expecting an actual answer, reveal a country that is deeply delusional by thinking it can prevent something that is a part of the fabric of a changed world—a world in which radical ideologies are not conveniently contained within physical borders but quietly networked through websites, discreetly funded electronically, and silently called to action by emails or cell phones. It is a world in which smaller is more nimble, more elusive, more dangerous. To put it another way, a handful disenfranchised people with an irrational beef in possession of significant weapons can cause a lot of damage. And there ain't much we can do about it.

To endlessly debate whether one political party can protect us more than another is a pointless exchange. No one has an answer that is factual or means much. All we do is incessantly spew our opinions as if they were truths, while our national arrogance continues to miss one opportunity after another to sway hearts and minds, possibly reducing the number of small people with big complaints and bigger weapons.

The answer to the question is who the hell knows and who the hell cares. Now let's get back to the business at hand.

Tell Your Friend