The latest question being debated in the media is, “Can we kill an American who is working for al Qaeda overseas?” It may be rhetorical, but it clearly demonstrates the confusion in America today about our status, that is, whether we are at war or not?

The nation is divided over the issue. If we are at war, why aren’t we trying war criminals in military tribunals as opposed to giving them the same rights that our citizens enjoy in civilian courts?

The Bush administration seemed to be clear that we are at war, and that enemy combatants should be tried in military courts. However, although Guantanamo Bay was established as the place to hold people who were picked up on the battlefield or otherwise captured and known to be terrorists, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, in the eight years following the World Trade Center attack, the government never completed the job of updating our laws to deal with such prisoners.

Most of the public seems to believe we are at war and that it is a war on terrorism. However, the Obama administration apparently does not agree.

This leads to confusion and weakens our nation’s defenses. Obama’s position that the word “terrorism” is not to be used by his administration and being unwilling to acknowledge that we are at war is directly at odds with his authorization to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and his approval of attacks by military drones in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The confusion is further exemplified by the administration’s handling of incidents like the Fort Hood shooting, promising to close Gitmo without thoroughly considering the consequences, and moving the trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the Christmas Day bomber to civilian courts. For the most part, the reasoning behind these decisions is not clear and the public appears to strongly object to them.

Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall have power to…declare War,” so perhaps the question should be, “Why not declare war al Qaeda and any other group that attacks us?”

We seem to be overlooking the fact that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August 1996. His declaration was published in a London based Arabic language newspaper and followed a long list of attacks on U.S. properties and personnel overseas dating back to 1979, when Iran took U.S. embassy employees hostage. It continued from there with the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon and a succession of other attacks thereafter, the most notable of which were the attacks on the World Trade Center in September 2001 and the attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight from Copenhagen to Detroit on Christmas day 2009.

So, what’s the problem? Are we at war or not? And, if we are, why don’t we formally declare war and move on from there? The obvious question is, “against whom?” There is no easy answer to this, but how about starting with al Qaeda and any nation or group that gives them support or allows them to use their territory for training and staging attacks on other nations?

As for declaring war, that’s the province of Congress, not the president, so why not move the process directly to the legislature where the issue can be openly debated, regardless of what the president may want? Ultimately, the decision is up to them, not him.

My guess is that the American people would strongly favor debating and settling this issue once and for all. We should eliminate any confusion about holding enemy combatants until the war ends and trying them in military tribunals or civilian courts, or killing an American who is openly waging war against his own country.

I know it’s a complicated and confusing issue, but no more than many others that are taken up by Congress. Let them get everything out on the table for all to see and discuss, then decide – so we can go forward with a clear understanding of the alternatives, good and bad, which hopefully would unify the nation behind a single, clear-cut policy.

The problem with the current situation is that it allows our enemies, al Qaeda, Muslim fundamentalists and others, such as Iran, to capitalize on our confusion and adapt their strategy accordingly, while we can’t seem to agree on how to respond.

As long as we continue to allow our enemies to exploit our vacillation and indecision, there are sure to be more attempts to attack our homeland, some of which are bound to succeed. To succeed, they only have to be right once, while to prevent them we must be right 100% of the time.

I believe we should push Congress to debate the issue and vote up or down for an open declaration of war on our enemies.

© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

An unverified observation that recently circulated on the Internet noted: “In 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting the economy of our country and 850 plus billion dollars to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze.
Now if that doesn’t make you nervous, what does?”

Turner Catledge, a journalist during the Roosevelt era, described the pattern used by the Roosevelt administration to sell his legislative proposals to the public as follows: “First there is the early ‘idea’ period, when either the President or some group of his associates hatches the rather rough for of what is to be attempted. Then there is the selling stage, in which the person or the group who thinks up the idea has to ‘sell’ it to the other. There follows in third place the ‘method’ stage when the modus operandi is evolved. The there comes the final ‘publicity’ stage when the program is announced and the argument is submitted both to Congress and the public in behalf of its adoption.”

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the tried and true formula being used by Obama and his administration to panic the public into accepting the so-called stimulus package that has been wending its way through Congress.

Economist Walter Williams has observed: “The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It’s that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. … A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don’t expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don’t need that.”

And, columnist Michelle Malkin noted: “Bashing Rush Limbaugh last week, Obama urged GOP lawmakers to ignore the voices of obstructionism and sign on to his behemoth stimulus package: ‘We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.’ … History has shown us that ‘Get Things Done’ is mindless liberal code for passing ineffective legislation and expanding government for government’s sake.”

In an open letter disseminated by the Cato Institute, two hundred economists stated, “More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s ‘lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.”

In short, the stimulus package being proposed by Congress is being hyped as the way to spend our way to prosperity. The president has been telling us that if we don’t act immediately, the nation may never recover from its present condition, which he has characterized as the worst economy since the Great Depression. However, if it is really possible to spend our way out of a recession, why isn’t the economy perpetually strong?

People who have held positions of responsibility know that that panicking in an emergency does not solve anything. As a matter of fact, it makes things worse. Panic keeps people from thinking clearly and acting without sufficient facts, especially in complex situations that present a variety of alternatives. And, the worst situation of all is when leaders panic.

President Obama’s image is that of a cool customer who keeps his head under pressure. Yet, he has repeatedly appeared in press conferences and public appearances, telling us that the situation with the American economy is so urgent that if we do not act immediately, we will never recover. I don’t see that as leadership. Under pressure, true leaders try to keep everyone else from over-reacting and losing control.

Unfortunately, the initial response of the Bush administration was also to overreact and hastily push through the $700 billion bailout package, then immediately spend $350 billion without any accountability. It’s clear that it did not work, yet we are being told that we need more of the same. The reality is that no one in either the Bush or the Obama administrations has provided any clear information about how the causes of the financial crunch that brought the economy down can be fixed, because they don’t know. For my part, I would prefer to see our leaders try to keep the public calm while they go about the business of methodically working to restore the economy.

The American people, who generally have more sense than their political leaders, appear to agree. A Gallup Poll recently found that 54% of Americans either want to see major changes to the current stimulus plan, or they reject it outright. Other surveys are also indicating that public support is declining rapidly. Politicians can call it stimulus and they can call it change, but it’s just more of the same old tax and spend approach – and the American people are starting to realize it.

© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”