BCT Editorial – 7/22/07

This page was last updated on August 6, 2007.

Freedom isn’t free; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 22, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If we are in a war against terrorism, let’s start acting like it.”

[RWC] Exactly one month before this editorial, “Unfair burden” said the same thing. Apparently this is a new theme for Times editorials.

“In the latest depressing news on terrorism, a declassified version of a National Intelligence Estimate released last week concluded al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on the United States.

“The report said the Iraq invasion has become a good recruiting tool and fund-raising source for Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network, which has regained its strength and with which al-Qaida in Iraq is loosely affiliated.

“Almost six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, the overall picture is bleak. The United States remains ill-prepared for terrorist attacks domestically and is bogged down in a war in Iraq that it cannot win but cannot afford to lose.

“A major problem is President Bush’s decision to shift the focus away from countering terrorism to invading and occupying Iraq. In doing so, he wasted valuable time and energy and, most important of all, severely crippled a first-class military organization.”

[RWC] Oops, the author failed to use the usual “ground up/ground down” description.

“The United States government and its people must regroup before it’s too late.

[RWC] I’ve previously bashed the Times for bashing while making no suggestions itself. This editorial is different.

“Boost the size of the Army by 250,000 troops and Marine Corps by 25,000 to relieve the pressure on the men and women who have done multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and face the prospect of more. The situation is intolerable. Too few are sacrificing too much for too many who really don’t care.”

[RWC] I’m all for increasing our military manpower. That said, I don’t know if the numbers cited by the editorial are enough. Regarding the final sentence in this paragraph, the Times may not care, but I believe most of us do.

“Increase domestic security at high-risk, soft-target facilities like nuclear power plants, chemical plants and oil refineries and critical public facilities such as water reservoirs.”

“Funnel more money to municipal police departments, sheriffs’ departments, fire departments and other local entities, including hospitals and municipal health departments, in high-risk areas for equipment, training and staffing.

“In addition to spotting local anomalies, they would be first responders in the event of terrorist attacks in their communities.”

[RWC] In general, I disagree. Local voters/taxpayers need to pay for these things themselves. Federal and state taxpayer dollars targeted for local spending is a roadmap for inappropriate spending and waste. Remember the editorials we read about local control?

“Pay for these increased costs by cutting spending and increasing taxes. Make Americans understand that, to quote the bumper sticker cliché, ‘freedom isn’t free’ and that shared sacrifices will be required of us all. It’s time to put our money where our slogans are.”

[RWC] First, I don’t believe for one second the Times is serious about cutting spending. Back in April, “Perception and reality” tried to convince us spending cuts wouldn’t add up to anything. You’ll note the editorial didn’t provide a priority list of what should be cut.

Regarding “increasing taxes,” that’s no surprise. What the editorial didn’t note was that our total tax burden for 2007 is already 25% higher than its highest point during World War II. According to the Tax Foundation, at its WW II peak (1943), the total tax burden was 26.1% of income. In 2007, it’s already 32.7%. You won’t be surprised to learn the post-war tax rate didn’t drop. In any case, while increasing taxes can result in short term tax revenue increases, the negative impact on the economy results in a long-term tax revenue decrease, higher unemployment, et cetera.

“The occupation of Iraq is a disaster. The war against terrorism hasn’t made us any safer. Domestic security remains woefully inadequate, and it’s only a matter of time before terrorists hit again.”

[RWC] As we’ve seen in previous editorials, when President Bush says something like “it’s only a matter of time before terrorists hit again,” it brings charges of scare tactics, Chicken Little, et cetera. It’s OK for the Times, though.

“The war against terrorism hasn’t made us any safer.” This may or may not be true, but outside of attacks on our military in Afghanistan and Iraq, there haven’t been any successful attacks on U.S. citizens for nearly six years. During the eight years from 1993 to 2001, we were attacked twice in the U.S. (approximately 3,000 dead), once in Somalia (19 dead soldiers), once in Saudi Arabia (18 dead soldiers), and once in Yemen (17 dead sailors). Also, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked (224 dead African civilians).

Will we ever be “safe” as long as we have Islamofascists trying to kill us? It’s not likely. Let’s look at Israel. Their security is far more pervasive and intrusive than Americans would likely tolerate, yet it goes through cycles of terror attacks.

“As a nation and a people, will we have the resiliency to respond to these attacks?

“What’s disturbing is that six years after 9-11, we still don’t know the answer.”

[RWC] I know the answer. That the Times doesn’t says a lot.