Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Not-so-friendly words

Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2001 | 8:47 a.m.

I think the nation exhaled a collective sigh on Sunday when President George W. Bush gave the long-awaited order for our military forces to begin what the president has called "Enduring Freedom," what could be a months- or years-long effort to eradicate the worldwide terrorist networks that have destroyed so much life in the past and threaten our futures with lives marred by fear and trepidation. Good for him and great for the men and women in uniforms of this country.

I use the plural because, while the bulk of those Americans who will go into harm's way in this fight to the finish of the terrorist zealots who would destroy us in our homes and places of work and worship are in the military, many are also the policemen, firemen and members of other law enforcement agencies whose responsibility it will be to keep us safe at home in the face of the unfathomable. As it has been since Sept. 11, this nation will remain united and focused on our goal to win what could be a long and casualty-laden war. To not win this war is, let's say, unacceptable.

We have heard that word before. In fact it was used by President Bush to describe Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's warning to the world and, specifically, the United States, that it not "appease" the Arab countries at Israel's expense. He referred to the coalition-building efforts of the State Department, which has appeared to be accepting all manner of compromise with "friendly" Arab countries to win their entry into the coalition.

The irony, of course, is that some of the very countries who are now praising the U.S efforts to eradicate terrorism have been sponsoring the terrorists -- paying for them, providing safe harbor for them, training and equipping them and teaching young children to grow up in the terrorists' image. These selfsame governments, when given the sign-up sheet that President Bush has laid before them which makes them choose whose side they will come down on, have smartly chosen our side. The Taliban, of course, signed up on the other page, and look what is happening to them now.

If this effort will show our "friends" in the Arab world the folly of their ways for the past 50 years and the clear path toward peace and harmony with the West, then accepting their word that they will no longer aid and abet terrorism in any form is a good tradeoff as we move forward toward a better tomorrow. It will be their deeds, though, that will define the depth of their commitment to peace and the level of their friendship with the United States. So far, if you ask me, they are wanting.

Let's start with the word friend. If I had a problem that I couldn't handle by myself, I have a number of friends I could call. In that I am not alone. Each of us has a handful or more of people we could call and say "help," knowing full well that our friends would come running to our side. And unlike our "friends" in the Middle East, they would not put conditions on their service. My problem would be theirs and vice versa.

What we have witnessed in the coalition-building efforts of the United States are a certain set of conditions that allow our planes to use air bases in one country, but only for humanitarian efforts. Air space is OK to use over another country, but not if bombers will use them on the way to Afghanistan.

And, yes, this country will help with intelligence gathering, but not if Israel is going to take part in the coalition. And the beat goes on and on with one condition laid upon another until we have cobbled together the biggest array of enemies of terrorism the world has ever seen. But, just how sound the foundation of the house that George built remains to be seen.

And that is the concern that was expressed by Sharon. Perhaps his words were a bit too intemperate. Perhaps he shouldn't have evoked memories of World War II and the appeasement of the Nazis by Europe in its desire to avoid war. Perhaps his timing was bad, having come while our nerves were still raw and our mourning for the thousands killed and injured in this country was not yet finished. Perhaps.

But what he said was deep-felt and his words rang true. The United States has only one real friend in that part of the world. Not coincidentally, it is the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it is more because it so resembles its best friend in the world, the United States, that Israel has been living and dying with terrorist attacks for the whole of its 53 years of life since the United Nations partition. Israel, until recently, has been the easiest target for these bastards to hit. Now, to our great sorrow, our own country knows what it is like to live like an Israeli.

At the same time, there has never been a friend to Israel like the United States. Perhaps there is some guilt that forms the base of American policy toward Israel but, mostly, there is the shared values of both countries that brought us close and keeps us closer to one another in the face, often, of world condemnation. But, as the song goes, that's what friends are for.

That's why I was confused the other day when President Bush responded to Prime Minister Sharon's warning not to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense by saying the words were "unacceptable." I just didn't understand. And, listening to Ari Fleischer, a man whose arrogance often overshadows the good sense for which the President hired him, brought no clarity to the situation. So, while I stayed angry at the thought that Bush II was turning into Bush I regarding a singular lack of understanding of the Middle East, I chalked it up to emotions and nerves which, understandably, were quite frayed.

That's when the war started and I saw that word again. This time, though, it came not from a friend to a friend but from an enemy.

When every good and decent government in the world, some very friendly and some barely so, came with praise for President Bush and the U.S. effort in earnest to rid the world of terrorists and the sponsors and harborers of them, there were a few obviously absent. The Taliban could be expected to say nasty things about the country and coalition that was pounding hell out of it -- or is it, into it? Iraq, well we all know not to expect much from Saddam. The Palestinian Authority issued its tired calls for peace in the face of its people cheering in the streets for the terrorist efforts. And the Saudis joined the U.S. in condemning terrorism while its other hand continued to clap.

But then I saw it, crawling across the bottom of the screen on CNN. Iran was calling the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan "unacceptable."

Almost 100 percent of Americans and every other freedom-loving person on this planet were grateful for what this country was doing to make the world a safer and saner place to live and the zealots in Iran were calling our effort "unacceptable."

You know what? I understand Iran. I expected that from them. It was the right word for our enemy to use at a time like this.

But I still don't understand that word used between friends. That situation remains unacceptable.

archive