[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 2 (Thursday, January 24, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E21]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE MATURE RESPONSE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 24, 2002

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his 
colleagues the January 20, 2002, editorial from the Omaha World-Herald 
entitled ``The Seriousness of War.''
  The current war on terrorism is the appropriate response to horrific 
and unspeakable terrorist attacks on U.S. soil which resulted in the 
deaths of thousands of innocent people. Under no sadder circumstances 
could the United States have launched a war. Let us not forget the pain 
of those circumstances and thus use our incredible capabilities to 
ensure that the likelihood of similar attacks is greatly diminished for 
not only future Americans, but also for others around the world.

             [From the Sunday World-Herald, Jan. 20, 2002]

                         The Seriousness of War

       Pacifism is a legitimate point of view, but its principles 
     seem a woefully impractical response to terrorists who are 
     unmoved by moral arguments.
       This thought is prompted by writings from readers who are 
     uncomfortable with the American government's response to the 
     Sept. 11 Osama bin Laden attacks. One such writing by Robert 
     Williams, an Iowa farmer and retired minister, included a 
     bitter denunciation. He said Americans ``seek and improve 
     ever more lethal weapons, and we use them now with barely 
     restrained excitement and pride.''
       Williams is right about one thing--weapons improvement. But 
     in many cases the result has been a dramatic increase in 
     precision, making civilian deaths less likely. That is a 
     reason for some of the pride.
       Certainly the nation is not romanticizing war. Not as 
     Americans did in 1861, for example, when picnickers 
     lightheartedly camped near Bull Run with the soon-to-be 
     dashed expectation of enjoying a quick rout of Confederate 
     forces. Europeans cheered during parades at the start of 
     World War I, mistakenly anticipating that the conflict would 
     be brief and glorious.
       In 2001, most Americans approached the war in Afghanistan 
     with a commendable seriousness of purpose. They have not 
     cheered the deaths of innocent Afghans (in contrast to Osama 
     bin Laden, whose cackling over the murder of the Sept. 11 
     victims was captured on videotape). They have supported the 
     enormous humanitarian effort with which America extended its 
     hand to the Afghan people while liberating them from their 
     Taliban and al-Qaida tormentors.
       American armed forces, moreover, have carried out their 
     duties honorably. Perhaps no military operation in history 
     has gone to greater lengths to use technology to minimize 
     civilian casualties. An Afghanistan-based correspondent for 
     USA Today recent noted that ``despite their popular image as 
     modern-day Rambos, Green Berets are, in fact, a remarkably 
     low-key and cerebral group.'' One Green Beret told the 
     reporter: ``Our mission is not necessarily to outfight the 
     enemy, although we can do that if we have to. We would rather 
     outthink them.''
       Americans can be proud that our defense lies in the capable 
     hands of level-headed individuals. And that our nation has 
     responded to the assault against us with commendable 
     maturity.

     

                          ____________________