Our Nation's Toolbox

IF I HAD A HAMMER (The Hammer Song)
words and music by Lee Hays and Pete Seeger

If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land

There’s a saying that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The insanity gripping our country at the moment is that while we pound our chests about America’s innovativeness and strength, we actively pursue limited approaches to our problems that weaken us. For a country with as many tools at its disposal as the United States has, we’ve taken to treating our foreign policy problems as if all we have is a hammer. And boy, are we eager to use it.

In a previous post, Dennis L. Hitzeman expressed his support of John McCain for President on the premise that this election is a one-issue election. I'm not here to debate Mr. Hitzeman's choice for President; McCain is probably not the worst choice we could make. I do, however, take issue with Hitzeman’s characterization of the problem and his subsequent choice of the single issue.

Hitzeman makes a valid point that no candidate of either party could possibly satisfy all of our desires or points of view. However, his assertions that "[t]he question before the American people in this election is whether to continue the current prosecution of the War on Terror or to turn our attention away from that concern to address other issues" and that the “most important job of the President of the United States is to keep America strong and safe against its international enemies” are overly-simplistic.

Hitzeman’s framing of the question as an “either/or” proposition is a dangerously myopic view. A country of our capabilities should be able to consider and address more than one idea, goal, or important issue. The strength of our nation depends precisely on our ability to assess and manage multiple threats, including internal and non-military ones. Furthermore, his simplification of the question ignores the very real impact of our economy and other domestic factors on our strength and security.

Similarly, Hitzeman’s claim that the President’s job is to keep us “strong and safe” is both false and ludicrous. Our strength and safety do not and could not rely on one person, but rather on the collective efforts of our citizenry and the collective wisdom, when it can be found, of the Legislative, Judicial, and, yes, Executive branches of our government.

The President’s most specific role is described in the oath that he takes prior to assuming his position. The President swears to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” (emphasis mine). His primary job is not to defend the country from outside threats (though he is the public face of the nation), but rather from internal threats to the Constitution. But even if our founding fathers had chosen to imbue the Presidency with the autocratic, monarchial powers that the radical and pernicious theory of the “Unitary Executive” would give it, the President still would not be able to keep us safe.

Hitzeman also places great emphasis on the so-called ‘War on Terror.” This breathless phrase, with its overly dramatic use of capital letters, is used as cover for our increasing military adventurism. We’ve eagerly slipped into a mindset that allows us to brand anyone who disagrees with us as a terrorist or terrorist supporter. There are actual terrorists out there and we should be fighting them, but using their existence as an excuse to attack nations we fear not only doesn’t address the problem, it creates new ones.

In fact, our greatest battle now is truly one against terror. Not “Terror” as a euphemism for some faceless Arab, but the actual terror we have felt in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. It is often repeated that “9/11 changed everything.” This is not true. That day, as horrible as it was, was merely an extension of a conflict that has been going on for some time. What changed was us.

We have steadily betrayed our principles in an attempt to make ourselves feel safe in an unsafe world. We have taken positive steps to secure our country and avoid the mistakes we made prior to 9/11 to be sure, but we have also succumbed to panic and fear. That panic and fear has caused us to strike out against the wrong targets. It’s the same panic and fear that leads smart people like Hitzeman to believe we have somehow entered a new time where our long-held principles no longer apply.

We cannot allow fear to narrow our scope of vision. We have more options than just “fight or flight.” If we are the strong country we claim to be, a brave people with the most enlightened form of government on the planet, then it is time we started to act that way. We desperately need some perspective. We need to wake up to the fact that no matter how dire our worst nightmare fears are, the enemy we face is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. In fact, their very choice of tactics – terror – is an indication of their actual weakness.

To date, we’ve wrongly resisted labeling and treating the terrorists as what they actually are: international criminals. Like other violent criminals, they are dangerous, but they are not the threat to our nation that fear has made them out to be. Yes, they can and have caused harm. Yes, they are dangerous. Of course, we must be alert, vigilant, and we must not let them escape our justice. However, we should also remember that these are people without a country, and they lack the resources to conquer our country.

If there is a singularly important issue before us in this election, it is the choice of a President who is truly unafraid, who understands the limits of the office, and who will fight special interests to restore balance to our tripartite government and justice to the rule of law. If we don’t repair the very fabric of our government, then the terrorists will have already won because they will have terrorized us into ceding away our principles and our freedom. They are already on the way to succeeding in just that.

One final note while we remain on a war footing. So many of our political pundits who are beating the drums for war are, themselves, unwilling to take up arms. Their excuses for this lack of personal conviction are legion. What they all have in common is a willingness to send other men and women to die for their safety so that they may, as Hitzeman puts it, “dwell on the other issues our nation faces.” This recalcitrance is strange because what our military is clamoring for more than any other resource is people willing to fight. If there is one thing upon which the pro- and anti-war camps agree, it is the belief that once we made the ill-advised decision for a war of choice with Iraq, we did not commit enough personnel and resources to the process of stabilizing the country after our initial assault.

To those of you who advocate for the continuance of war, be it in Iraq or Iran, it’s time for you to step up to the plate with more than rhetoric or your ballot. It is time you support your position in the strongest terms possible: enlist. It is unseemly and cowardly for you to ask others to fight the wars of your choice.

Update: It's come to my attention that Mr. Hitzeman has indeed served his country, continues to, and has served in Iraq. While my last comment wasn't directed specifically at Mr. Hitzeman, I nevertheless want to recognize his service and thank him for it. I am pleased to see that he hasn't taken the same hypocritical stance that so many pundits in the media have. He has, in fact, acted upon his beliefs.