One
cardinal rule of special commission politics is that if you want
to appear to be taking a public concern seriously without actually
doing anything on the issue, propose creating a new related cabinet-level
agency. By the way, am I the only one to notice the irony that while
the 9/11 Commission concluded bureaucracy between the CIA and FBI
was a problem during the September 11 attacks, it is proposing an
entirely new layer of bureaucracy as the cure?

The
Bush Administration also did this by recommending the "Department
of Homeland Security" after the September 11 attacks. Now,
the 9/11 Commission has proposed to create the second cabinet-level
as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the "Department of Intelligence."
I'm waiting for John Kerry to show those pikers at the 9/11 Commission
how someone who really cares about protecting this country
from terrorism would act. Surely, I expect he will propose, we need
two new cabinet agencies for this issue. Only one more simply will
not do.

Only
in America could a country have both a "Department of Homeland
Security" and a "Department of Defense" – titles
that mean exactly the same thing – and a commission recommending
a third cabinet-level agency charged with a related responsibility.

The
Department of Defense used to defend the United States from outside
attackers, but that job now falls to the Department of Homeland
Security. At least I think it does, though the 9/11 Commission admitted
that it's hard to tell for sure these days. The Department of Defense
now primarily fights our nation's foreign wars. On that point, I'm
certain.

Interestingly,
the Department of Defense was originally called the "Department
of War." But Congress changed that to the Department of Defense
in 1947, because the Department of War was considered too warlike
a title. Back when we had a Department of War, the United States
only rarely fought wars — and Congress always gave the nation against
whom we were fighting the courtesy of a declaration of war. Now
we fight wars all the time using the Department of Defense, but
we never declare them wars. That would sound too warlike, especially
now, under times like now when President Bush says we are "at
war." This explains why Congress did not declare war against
Iraq and Afghanistan. Or does it? I'm not sure on that point, either.

But
the point I'm coming to is that our Department of Defense has little
to do with defense and a lot to do with offense — especially under
the Bush Doctrine of "preemption." How about renaming
the two departments to the "Department of Defense" and
the "Department of Offense"? We could complete the football
analogy by calling the new cabinet agency the "Department of
Special Teams," though an "Intelligent Defense Department"
would be more of a change for the better if we could prevent it
from becoming an oxymoron.

But
I digress.

The
9/11 Commission undoubtedly offered some helpful suggestions on
the margins of the terrorism issue. On the critical issues, however,
issues where we could actually stop terrorism, they passed the buck.
The 9/11 bombers all had several things in common. Yes, they were
all Muslims. But also, none of them were born here. Instead of actually
securing our borders and closely tracking legal immigrants from
Muslim countries, the 9/11 Commission decided to pretend it is dealing
with the issue by creating a cabinet-level spy agency just like
every other police state throughout history. Hitler had the Gestapo
and the Soviet Union had the KGB. America will have … whatever Congress
decides to call it.

Instead
of getting control of our borders and tracking likely terrorists,
the 9/11 Commission has instead concluded that "Americans should
not be exempt from carrying biometric passports or otherwise enabling
their identities to be securely verified when they enter the United
States" and "secure identification should begin in the
United States." If only we will give up a little of our freedom,
they tell us, we will be safe. Actually, they didn't say that in
so many words. Like many who would take away our freedoms, the 9/11
Commissioners used the soothing language of finding a "balance"
between freedom and security. But the balance of the weight of new
regulations and restrictions under the 9/11 Commission recommendations
would be borne by Americans inside the United States, and not by
immigrants — guests in our national home — at the national borders.

I
should point out that as long as we fail to control our borders
and have millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, a
huge domestic spy apparatus to snoop into the lives of Americans
will be necessary.

The
9/11 Commissioners did not recommend a "balance" between
freedom and security. The reality is that historically, no nation
that has given up its freedom has been safe. And that's what the
9/11 Commission recommendations will give us: no security and less
freedom. Oh, and a really spiffy new cabinet agency named the "Department
of National Intelligence." After all, they are so smart in
Washington.

August
4, 2004

Thomas
R. Eddlem
[send him mail] is a
freelance writer in East Taunton, Mass.