Bush Has to Lead, the Rest of Us Have to Sacrifice

Pearl Harbor!

An act of war!

These have been the slogans of choice.

Pearl Harbor conjures memories of World War II and the response of the greatest generation ever. And as that generation is about to pass, we have accelerated our praise and acclamation.

In December 1941, we confronted the armed might of Germany and Japan, then among the world's leading powers.

What occurred on Sept. 11 has limited use as an analogy. Yes, American soil has been attacked and American citizens killed in still unknown numbers. But we are not facing the massed resources of a hostile state, with clearly defined boundaries and resources to attack.

What is similar is our sense of insecurity. Sixty years ago, bold, imaginative and determined leadership inspired a massive response of American might and will.

Leadership is more than words or threats. Franklin D. Roosevelt - who said"we have nothing to fear but fear itself" - offered noble,inspired words, but his deeds and actions combated the Great Depression.

Portraying Dec. 7, 1941, as a day of infamy was not enough to turn back the Axis. FDR understood that leadership required him to urge and prod courageous acts to mass that public will. He adeptly used the enormous military talent, mobilized the productive and military might of the nation, worked closely with other political leaders and, from the home front, he called for and received a prodigious effort.

The 12 million Americans who served in the military during World War II offer only a part of that greatest generation. The other 130 million Americans contributed mightily and in diverse ways. Most striking was the pervasive and willing sense of sacrifice.

Military personnel, of course, offered the supreme sacrifice, while other men and women sacrificed several years of their lives.

But civilians, too,"fought." We learned how to deal with food rationing, including that for meat, canned goods and sugar. Gasoline was rationed, primarily to conserve on rubber tires. The war solved the Depression, and America gained full employment. Yet families that had done without some necessities and certainly their luxuries now found their ability to spend their new-found"prosperity" severely limited.

The war effort involved everyone, including school children who lugged ten pounds of paper, or a sack full of crushed tin cans, or spent half their allowance on war stamps. We confidently believed the government was doing everything humanly possible to win the war. In today's climate of hostility to the very notion of government, such beliefs are rare, indeed. And analogies are always tricky.

Certainly, the United States now is under threat, not from the military might of a hostile foreign power, but from the sophisticated operations, abetted by modern communications, of isolated groups of terrorist cells. Their power far outstrips their numbers.

What did it to take to commandeer an airliner and fly into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon? Make no mistake: The threats are serious, but capturing or killing Osama bin Laden will not end such threats. Martyrs are followed and imitated.

Our responses must go beyond missiles or bayonets. For openers, we can tell the Afghan Taliban that we find their regime unacceptable and that we now will revoke the $43 million that President Bush granted them in May because they promised not to grow poppies for opium. That is extortion.

A government that treats women as sub-humans, tortures dissenters and forces non-Muslims to wear identity badges and harbors bin Laden, a man we have directly connected to other previous acts of terror, is not one for us to support.

We might also ask Yasser Arafat to again tell his people that such acts of terror are wrong, but this time tell them in Arabic so they can understand him.

The president and Congress must create a safer travel environment, which means imposing new concepts for security. Bush promises that"we will spend what it takes," but we must be prepared to spend money and sacrifice our cherished conveniences. We should restore the Sky Marshal program, which by all accounts, effectively worked a quarter century ago before we allowed it to lapse, either for cost reasons or simple overconfidence.

Will our road warriors, who"must" make a certain number of calls every day, willingly submit to airport arrival, three hours before departure for security purposes? What about surrendering that convenient e-ticket? Curbside luggage check-in? Airline check-in at hotels? Surrendering the"right" to carry a pocket knife?

Trifling matters, to be sure, but necessary for security. If we implement them, for how long will we commit? Is such convenience an essential ingredient for the American way of life, which we repeatedly promise to maintain? We must totally revamp our airport security system. Should an airline, run by someone opposed to all government regulation, determine our safety and security needs, subject to no governmental supervision? Absolutely not; we know the bottom line will rule every time.

The president has said we will spend whatever is necessary. Pre-emption and prevention are now the major priorities. It is time to de-privatize and replace for-profit companies who now run safety and security programs. We must train and pay for professional people to operate airport security. This is no minimum wage job. It requires trained, competent personnel who can question travelers with something other than a programmed list of three standard questions.

Will it cost more to travel? Of course. Will airlines be less crowded? Let us hope so. But all of that is relatively simple.

Our most effective weapons remain our intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities. In recent years, we have confronted a variety of failures in the institutions responsible for these weapons, including the FBI, the CIA and those responsible for the security of our borders. It is neither unpatriotic nor subversive to point to their failures.

The Cold War is over, and we won with the kind of efforts and institutions we employed. Those challenges and battles are history. We must, as Lincoln said, have the courage to"think anew."

In the end, we must have the leadership and political courage to implement new ideas, new directions. Our present political climate is paralyzing. We are dismayed by the failure of our institutions, but do we have the resourcefulness to challenge the shibboleths of entrenched institutions and their outmoded ways?

Political courage is an all-too rare commodity in these days of polls, focus groups and self-serving interest groups. The president has pledged that the focus of his administration will be to combat terrorism. Fine.

But leadership involves more than seeking revenge and retaliation. Such action largely is symbolic. We need effective leadership to prevent and thwart future attacks. We cannot recall the past; the attacks of Sept. 11 will linger long in the nation's consciousness.

The challenges we confront are colossal. What our leaders do will be measured in the long term. Raining missiles on Kabul or its environs promises little. Remember President Clinton's futile missile attacks on a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan and the dusty hills of Afghanistan? Sometimes actions have no consequences.

If we wish to honor that greatest generation ever, then we must remember and emulate their will, their resolve and their imagination.

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Sept. 16, 2001.