by Gordon Ryan
Wright was silent for a moment, and then spoke. “Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That’s all I have this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”
“Are there any other questions for Secretary Austin before we begin? Hearing none, the floor is yours, Mr. Secretary.”
Speaking without notes or prepared text, Austin took a drink of water and began. “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I offer my appreciation for your invitation this morning to present my thoughts on the proposal currently under review by this committee. My comments today are not in written form and are delivered to your committee ‘in camera.’ They are not for publication, merely for consideration as you ponder the merits of this proposal. In addition, I would like to state initially that my thoughts will differ significantly from those of General Wainscott, who has recommended approval. However, I understand his position and his advocacy of this proposal. He is tasked with defending America, domestically and internationally. I cannot fault his position, but merely point out some of the inherent difficulties that would be associated with adoption of the SI proposal in its domestic application.
“Winston Churchill once said, ‘America will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other options.’ I think we are once again in that position. We are sorting through the options and, hopefully, it will not take us too long, or be too late, when we finally arrive at the right decision. Another of history’s leaders, closer to home, made more succinct remarks when he addressed the military’s propensity to ‘fight the last war’ again. In 1961, President John Kennedy was preparing to establish the special operations force that became the famous Green Berets. He chastised the military leadership, reminding them that we faced ‘. . . another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by evading and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him.’
“Most military flag officers continue to prepare to fight the last war again. That is a well-known concept. The outstanding land battle victory in Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003 seemed to confirm the validity of that preparation, a fixed piece, open field army on army. However, in the latter example, we were absolutely unprepared for the insurgency that followed. That failure was uncalled for, since there was plenty of historical precedent. The French underground after German occupation, aided by the US and British Jedburgh teams. The Norwegian underground which worked with the British. They each were successful to the extent they were willing to have innocent civilians executed for their attacks.
“There isn’t an army in the world that thinks it can stand up to the USA on the traditional battlefield. But they also know that we have no defense against one man and a suitcase bomb. With that premise, let me address the merits of the proposal before this committee.
“As a career military man only recently entering the political arena, I can see much merit in the proposal before the committee, especially in light of the roving band of terrorists ravaging America at present. Indeed, had some of the law enforcement retention authority been available to our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, we might have made quicker strides.”
Austin paused for a moment, looking briefly at Senator McKenzie, who was sitting on the far left of the dais.
“America is often accused of being populated by a soft, weak people. Granted, we do not foster the Spartan lifestyle. Few of us are in daily training for the Olympics. And we tend to be self-indulgent in peaceful times. Yet in every instance where America has been in peril, our young men, and now even our young women, have risen to the occasion. They have become tougher, more prepared, and equal to the challenge. They have learned, as my Marine associate, General Connor, has quoted on more than one occasion, that true toughness is more mental than physical. Our young people find the way to acquire that mental strength and to persevere.
“We have demonstrated in adequate historical example that we do not need to raise Hitler Youth from the cradle in order to have a strong defensive force. Yet our personal indulgence, as it is often called, is not prohibitive of strength. I will grant you that many in our society would prefer that someone else’s son stand on the wall and protect us. Not all are willing to share the burden. But our volunteer military has proven that many accept their duty to America, despite the multiple combat tours they must endure to fill the requirement others have forsaken.
“Our people also know that if they disagree strongly enough with our national policies, they can throw all of you out of office at the next election. We usually don’t,” he chuckled,” but we can if we so choose.”
Senator Culpepper leaned forward in his seat and smiled at Austin. “We are glad this morning, Mr. Secretary, that your testimony is in closed session and will not be provided to the press,” he quipped to laughter around the dais.
“Thank you, Senator. I was not, of course, speaking of anyone on this particularly astute and illustrious committee.” More laughter.
“History is replete with authoritarian and permissive societies. Which ones have been successful and which have succumbed? As we might imagine, the answer is not all of one and none of the other. When foreign nations threaten the interest of the United States, many say diplomacy is the answer. ‘Peace with Honor’ in 1939 England resulted in World War II. Leninist and Stalinist Russia led to three quarters of a century of repression, fratricide, economic failure and eventual collapse. Hitlerian Germany brought the world to the brink of doom in search of the master race, nearly eliminating another culture they considered inferior.
“Most democratically minded governments, which are generally consensual and incremental in nature, are slow to confront an enemy, but, once aroused, they have been very successful in defeating them. And now the enemy has come to our shores. Since the end of the War of 1812, America has been fortunate to fight our enemies abroad, yet now we are faced with an invasion of terrorists. How do we deal with that? How shall we restrain these terrorists without reducing the freedoms our people enjoy? Are the restrictive measures curtailing personal freedoms that are contained in the proposal before you the answer? And where will Americans stand on this most monumental question? Those are the questions you have to decide.”
“Mr. Chairman, might I ask Secretary Austin a question?” Senator McKenzie asked.
“Mr. Secretary, will you accept an interruption from Senator McKenzie?”
“Certainly, Mr. Chairman, with pleasure.”
“Thank you, General Austin. Many of my colleagues in the Senate, beyond this committee, are concerned about the duration of these measures and how long the American people might be subjected to these restrictions. Do you have any advice for this committee as regards the longevity of our emergency and, perhaps more importantly, the proposed preventative measures?”
“Senator, that is the quintessential question, isn’t it? Let me address the issue this way, given the confidentiality and non-public setting of the committee. In light of Senator McCain’s ‘hundred years’ war’ comment, and the attendant press ridicule, I hesitate to reveal my thoughts, but you are entitled to my honest opinion.
“In 1934, the Chinese communists, under the leadership of Mao, were all but defeated by the Nationalist government. They began an 8,000 mile retreat which took just over a year. It came to be called The Long March, and was the standard for sacrifice which Mao used to unify his people. General Mao saved his army and lived to triumph in history’s greatest reversal of military defeat.
“I have begun to think of our war on terrorism as The Long War. Our citizens, including those on this committee, don’t want to hear such talk. We want to win—tomorrow. But I firmly believe that there are children not yet in high school who will serve in Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. The citizens who will continue to fight this war, and to fund its expenditure, are not yet even born. Senator, this is not simply a battle with black and white victory. We are in a battle for our way of life. I believe
in the depths of my soul that it is the battle of good and evil.”
“That’s a very depressing scenario, Mr. Secretary,” Senator McKenzie said. “Do you see no light on the horizon, some way to counteract the longevity you describe? How can our citizens face up to the issues of our generation?”
“Now that is what I find depressing, Senator. This prognosis is politically unacceptable, not inaccurate. Our leaders cannot tell the public the truth. We tell them tomorrow will be fine. We’ve become a society of instant gratification. For many of our citizens, beyond next week, beyond tomorrow, is too long to wait for anything. When people shop, they don’t ask, ‘how much does it cost?’ they ask, ‘how much does it cost per month?’ They want it now. The great French philosopher and parliamentarian, Alex de Tocqueville, said that a democratic America would likely fail from within, not through external conquest. By those words, he meant that our freedom, our liberal attitude toward the rights of the individual, would bring about our demise. Once the people found out they could vote themselves a constant income, that the public purse was open to politicians who promised its unequal distribution, the economy of such a society would fail. And how much better it is to buy what we want, and know that someone else will have to foot the bill. That someone else is our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. But inclusive in de Tocqueville’s analysis was the right to expect freedom without restraint. Will the security measures contained in this proposal reverse that premise?
“Was de Tocqueville right? Or is Domestic Tranquility a total reversal of two hundred years of personal freedom which will abrogate the liberty ensured by the Constitution? These are the questions before this committee. At the core of my experience, I have come to believe one basic principle: there is no freedom without security, but conversely, there is no security without freedom. It is a dichotomy America has wrestled with since our Founding Fathers laid down the basic tenants of our nation.”
Pug sat quietly to the general’s right side, occasionally making eye contact with Rachel, but no expression of personal acquaintance was exchanged. She was taking notes, intently listening to General Austin. Senator McKenzie had been very understanding when Pug had called to advise that he would be unable to attend the wedding reception due to work commitments. As Secretary Austin had delivered his comments, Pug could see several of the senators nodding in agreement with the general, others more stoic and reserved in their visible response, reluctant to reveal their position.
Austin continued. “In preparation for this morning, I wrestled with presenting examples of history wherein one nation or another sacrificed either liberty or security in pursuit of peace. Many nations have felt the strongest military assured them of prosperity and invincibility, but a well-armed battalion is no match for two terrorists in a car with a rifle or a bomb. Other societies have determined that having no military assured them that the outside world would not see them as a threat, thereby eliminating the need for conquest. Both examples were right … and wrong.
“America has had growing international influence since the end of World War I and has been a world power since World War II. We have often assumed the role of world policeman, trying to right the perceived wrongs of other governments, to impose our democratic values on sovereign nations. Bluntly stated, we have stuck our nose in where it was not wanted, even by those we were trying to protect. One persistent question of the day is whether or not democracy is acceptable in a region of the world where the law of Sharia—the religious law of the Koran—has been the way of life for centuries. Sharia is far more repressive of personal choice than the freedom American’s enjoy, but to many, including millions of Americans not of the Islamic persuasion, the principles espoused under Sharia are preferable to the ‘anything goes’ law of a permissive society. As America has raced around the world seeking to impose our democracy, we have often resorted to doing so at the point of a gun.
“I began my military career in Vietnam. I know that hearts and minds are not won by force. By these statements, please do not misunderstand me. It’s my opinion that America has brought far more good to the world this last century than they have bad. But we have not always been right. We have not always honored our commitment to our founders that we would be both honorable and benevolent. The fact that something is less repulsive than its alternative is not sufficient reason to choose either.
“Members of this committee will recall the words of a former president, Bill Clinton, when he addressed his party’s national convention. He said ‘we should lead the world by the power of example, not by the example of power.’ Strong words, motivational words, true words. Commensurate with that philosophy is the political concept bandied about by everyone who thinks diplomacy is the answer to everything. They shout, ‘military might should be the last resort.’ But inherent in that statement is the concept that military power must be a resort at some point or it loses its validity.
“So,” he said, looking at each senator individually for one or two seconds, “where does that leave us in deciding the relative merits of Domestic Tranquility? I will leave you with these parting thoughts and then I am available for questions on specific aspects of the program. If Domestic Tranquility becomes the law of the land in America, our Constitution will become simply an historical document, its principles abrogated by the removal of the freedoms inherent in its overriding philosophy. There will be no retreat from that posture short of another revolution. A domestic revolution, I might add. And as we all know, we already have such a revolution brewing out west. Will we be strong against terrorism? Yes, to the extent that terrorists will find it much harder to enter America, circulate freely and terrorize our citizens. Will we be weaker? Yes, in the sense that step by step, innocent Americans will be detained for days, even weeks. Our citizens will be afraid to leave their homes, afraid to criticize the government, afraid to oppose policy. The next step would be the restriction of a free press on the grounds of national security. Everyone in this room knows that the media abuses their right to publish anything they find newsworthy. They have even degraded professional journalism to the point where they present their opinion as news. Yet, as distasteful as it has become, we must learn to live with that hypocrisy. America would not be a free country without a free press.
“I implore you to give strong consideration to the lasting implications contained in the basic philosophical change that this program will bring to America. Its ramifications will reverberate far beyond our shores. And do not delude yourselves into assuming that these changes are short-term, designed to counteract the current threat. They will become irreversible. They will become the American model. And they will change the America in which we each grew to maturity, free to change our residence, free to approach Congress and demand change, free to print articles critical of the government, free to live unencumbered by repression and restraint.
“I would add one more thought for your further consideration. What has been termed politically correct speech, to include tolerance for the views and actions of others, has expanded so far in our country that we are no longer able to speak out against values that are intrinsically opposed to those upon which our country was founded. We have gone from ‘freedom of religion’ to ‘freedom from religion.’ What were once core values are now unacceptable. We are not allowed to pray in school, post religious value statements in public places, observe religious symbols on public grounds. We cannot voice opposition to those whose views are so antithetical to the American notion of a free country that we allow the most abhorrent crime, the most egregious personal lifestyle, or the most restrictive philosophy to be presented as the norm. Our tolerance has devolved to the point where anyone can perform any aberrant act, but no one is allowed to say they don’t like it. At the same time, we have allowed those same advocacy groups to demand elimination of speech which proposes the opposite point of view. Free speech is allowed only as it supports their point of view. And we, those of us in this room, the leaders of this nation, have no
t only tolerated such restrictive notions, we have advocated them ourselves, we have enacted them into legislation, forced obedience, dismantled programs deemed offensive, including supposed religious education, especially creation science, and required elimination of any reference to the Ten Commandments or God, all under the guise of tolerance and separation of church and state. Separate their requirements for adherence, by all means, but understand that you cannot separate one’s belief from their actions simply because you want it so. The sky is blue, snow is white, the grass is green. It cannot be otherwise because you want it to be so. Congress seeks judges who have no demonstrable values so that they can opine objectively. We seek to eliminate them from consideration simply because they have values. How foolish have we become? And now we seek to implement Domestic Tranquility, which, if enacted, Senators, will be anything but tranquil.
“I thank you for your time this morning and the opportunity to speak to you on this critical issue. General Connor and I will be pleased to remain as long as required to answer your questions.”
Chapter 25
White House Oval Office
Washington, D.C.
June
Secretary of Homeland Security William Austin sat quietly as Marine General Pádraig ‘Pug’ Connor completed his briefing to the president of the United States and the newly confirmed Secretary of Defense, Patrick Collins. The meeting had lasted forty minutes and was about to break up, after which Pug had been invited for a family dinner in the White House residence, along with his brother, Scott, and Scott’s wife, Megan.
“To summarize, Mr. President, the Australians have continued to have sporadic shootings, mostly at public venues, on the beaches, malls, and sporting events. The same thing has happened in England, but to a lesser degree. In the U.S., highway shootings have increased this past two weeks, but we consider that to be a passing phase, with other venues likely to be added. Some shootings have happened outside factory or industrial settings where people have been shot as thousands of workers leave at the end of their shift. Most of these have taken place in the parking lots. We have a confirmed death toll in America of 327, with over 600 additional wounded.”
