Are we at war or what?

IF THE NEW YORK TIMES HAD DISCLOSED in 1943 that Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt had authorized the FBI to tap all overseas calls, can you imagine the outrage--not at the President, but at the press? It is highly unlikely, however, that, in 1943, even if The New York Times had known such a thing, that the one-time newspaper of record would have made such a disclosure. We were at war, and everybody knew it. More than 16,000,000 served in the armed forces. People at home gave blood, bought war bonds, planted victory gardens, accepted gas and meat rationing, sent their sons into battle with pride, and suffered quietly at their losses. Thousands of men died bravely at places Americans never had heard of before (and now never will forget). Hollywood films such "Bataan," "Pride of the Marines," "The Best Years of Our Lives," and "They Were Expendable" celebrated those who sacrificed as heroes of a worthy cause, not pitiable victims. No Gold Star Mother camped out at Hyde Park to protest her son's death. The popular culture reflected America's willingness to pay the price of defending our country and liberties without flinching. Even comic strip heroes--Joe Palooka, Buzz Sawyer, and Mickey Finn--went to war because their creators knew children never would respect them otherwise. After Pearl Harbor, no one dreamed of asking, "Why do they hate us?"

Sixty years later, we once more are at war, and men again are dying in places we never heard of. Yet, the atmosphere at home is light-years away from that of World War II: The

New York Times and Washington Post publish leaks about the most sensitive intelligence operations; Hollywood produces films where the real villain is some CIA operative, not an A1 Qaeda fanatic; Cindy Sheehan's grief over her son's death in Iraq becomes a rallying point for anti-war activists.

Soon after the events of 9/11, I wrote that the new ethic of the day must be determination, vigilance, and self-sacrifice, not self-indulgence and self-absorption. I thought that perhaps the spirit of the World War II home front would reappear. How wrong I have been.

For most Americans, the war against Islamic fascism in Iraq and Afghanistan is an unpleasant intrusion. After a brief outburst of outrage and patriotism following 9/11, our politics and popular culture have reverted to form. Liberals save most of their outrage for Pres. George W. Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney and their passion for keeping the government from tapping overseas phone calls and checking the financial records of potential domestic terrorists. Many politicians seek to revive the anti-war movement of the 1960s and see the conflict in Iraq as a ticket to ride back into office. Those who long have waited for a return of the 1960s should be reminded that this is not Vietnam, which was a sideshow in the Cold War. This is a main event. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the counterterrorist efforts at home to prevent another 9/11 are against an enemy as dangerous as the most fanatical fascist or communist. These walking nightmares from the Dark Ages have no desire to bargain with us--or even to take things from us. They wish to destroy us and our civilization. As one of their leaders claimed, "We are fighting to eliminate you." They have no single home address, and they wear no uniforms. There is no Kremlin to plot against, no Berlin or Tokyo to bomb. With potential access to modern technology, they could let loose any number of biological, chemical, or radiological horrors on unsuspecting innocent victims. Just ask the people of New York, London, and Madrid.

Even if we are successful in Iraq, as I suspect we will be, this war will not be over. Another Taliban regime may appear in the region and Al Qaeda cells may metastasize. Francois Revel, a Frenchman with rare insight, has written, "Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it."

The Bush Administration, which has made its share of mistakes in the Iraqi war, nonetheless appreciates the seriousness of the struggle. In authorizing the warrantless intercepts of overseas communications, Pres. Bush understands that, given the dangers before us, some infringements on personal privacy and civil liberties are inevitable. Should some terrorist group slip the net and unleash a radiological weapon in one of our major cities, citizens will demand restrictions far greater than those in place today. No one will expect the government to elevate civil liberties over a dire threat to the public safety.

The critics of our current policies make some valid points: We need to develop laws and procedures mat strike a sensible balance between liberty and security; reconstruct our military force so that it can fight these new back-alley wars; have a President who asks more of the country than merely accepting tax cuts. Beyond this, we must remind ourselves that we are at war and will be at war for some time. The government will, at times, be required to act with dispatch and stealth. Responsible leaders of the opposition must not exploit every oscillation of the opinion polls when events turn sour. Leaving Iraq in haste may be popular at some moment, but it will be as dangerous an illusion as the British indulged in at Munich in 1938.