Many, many things have been written about the impact of 9/11 on America, and the world since that tragic day. Now a debate rages about Iraq: is it a sponsor of terrorists, or not? Should we give Saddam a chance through negotiation for more inspections, or assume that he would make a mockery of the process? Should we attack now in order to force a “regime change”, or wait?

Wait for what? For Saddam to strike? Or for Saddam to present incontrovertible evidence that he has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, if not to the US or Europe, then to Israel or other friends in the region?

It occurs to me that we were given a brief respite between the original Cold War and a new, more malicious version. The New Cold War pits America against a type of enemy who we call “evil doers” and terrorists. However, these enemies are not in one country, not sponsored by one state. They cannot be defeated on a battlefield; they do not seek that kind of war as a rule.

There are many parallels between this Cold War and the last:
• The enemy includes a number of states and a number of terrorist groups funded by them.
• Destruction of a group, or toppling a regime, will not end the threat. The threat will take years to contain, years longer to defeat.
• We will achieve victories in visible, and invisible, battles.
• Ideas, ideals, and economics are among the chief weapons to be used in this battle.
• Our convictions will be tested from within as well as by our enemy directly. There are many free people who fear war, who fear the loss of young lives, who fear—fear.

Are we more secure a year after 9/11? In some ways we are. Passengers have already shown both the willingness and the ability to protect themselves on aircraft. Citizens are volunteering for duty in police, fire, and military service in increasing numbers. We honor those willing to make the sacrifice in defense of our liberty more now than on 9/10.

However, the Homeland Security Department is a politicized mess, bogged down over turf and Civil Service rules. The Transportation Security Agency is at best a work in progress.

We have no choice but to slog through these messes. Our borders must be better protected than before. We have a right to know who is in this country, whether that requires a form of “profiling” or not. Public gathering places, mass transit, seats of government, and critical infrastructure must be protected. Sadly, we cannot count on the oceans to protect us from attack. We cannot hope for the best, and fail to prepare for the worst.

We have been called to act in our own defense. This is not like a failure to prepare for a natural disaster—something that may or may not happen. Something that can be compensated for by a neighbor’s generosity, or parcels from a relief agency. Now lives, and the future of our way of life, are at stake. To fail to act would be to fail ourselves and our children, and to embolden an implacable enemy who seeks signs of our weakness, and draws strength from them.

There is plenty of evidence that Saddam is a psychopath in the mold of Hitler and Stalin. Let us not give him the opportunity to prove that he is a killer on the same scale.