Well, it’s official: the war has begun. People around the nation are under attack. Representatives at the highest level of government have become vulnerable targets, and there’s nothing anyone can do to protect them.

In light of the tragic terrorist events of September 11, 2001, you are probably thinking, “Yeah, okay, Scoop, now what’s the point?" That’s my point exactly. I’m not going to discuss all the lack of security fears, the feelings of being violated, or that the nation no longer feels as secure as it did prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. No, actually I am looking at an even deeper issue. It’s an issue which has been at the forefront of many arguments and debates over the years, picking up in times of conflict and waning during times of peace and security.

President George W. Bush has told Congress, and the nation, repeatedly, that the “War on Terrorism" is one that cannot be defined by any kind of timetable, and mostly likely to last years. When he first told that to Congress, the truth of the statement probably didn’t click with many people. In fact, many people are just now beginning to wonder about the statement, asking for clarification. You see, we are no longer in a clear war with defined battles, where the enemy is an identified force. No, the U.S., you see, got its first real taste of guerrilla warfare during the Vietnam conflict. Sure, there were other instances the U.S. saw guerrilla action in battle, going back to the Revolutionary War, in fact, but Vietnam presented a new type of conflict: the enemy was not defined. The guy who gave you that close shave with a straight razor at noon was the same guy whose body you pulled from the concertina wire following a nasty overnight battle the next night – but he was the attacker, not an ally.

Following the United States’ Vietnam experience, people began to describe things in terms of guerrilla warfare. Then there were the rebels, such as the Afghan Rebels who made a stand against the once mighty and powerful Soviet army back in the late 70s and 80s. Americans, for the most part, supported the Afghan rebels because they were the underdog. The U.S. lent unofficial aid and support, and even went so far to lend CIA training and support to the Afghan rebels. In fact, the U.S. went so far as to train and equip many of those in leadership roles among the Afghan rebels, teaching them tricks and techniques for that nasty guerrilla-type warfare that many detested. Guerrilla warfare, in a quick summary, is striking fast and hard, without emotion, with fighters who, you hope, remain unseen.

The training and support the U.S. gave to those Afghan rebels came back to bite the U.S. on the butt. One of the chiefs among those underdog Afghan rebels was a guy named Usama bin Laden, and, in light of information and evidence shared with the U.S. public to date, it seems he learned his CIA-funded lessons well. In fact, he learned his lessons so well, he was able to bite the hand that fed him – and lived to bask in the glory of it all. Now that’s ironic, isn’t it?

Now, in the post-September 11 United States, people are flying flags, but some of that has waned, but, for the most part, people are still chanting their “Red, White, and Blue" cheers. That’s all good and fine. But is that a show of support? Is it some form of patriotic chant? Is it a primal instinct to attempt to form nationalistic bonds? Whatever it is, I hope it dies down some. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not unpatriotic in the least. I’m getting tired of people wanting do poor cheerleading at the expense of my senses. Where were these same people in the days prior to September 11? Weren’t they the same people who were talking about a stolen election, about how Republicans were evil and Democrats were the only saving grace for the U.S., and how Bill Clinton was wronged by the media in his final days in office?

Well, here we are, in the midst of a “War on Terrorism," spending millions of dollars each day to bomb caves and mud buildings, using the latest and greatest in global positioning technology, strategic fighter jets, and other high-tech equipment that makes many geeks, myself included, drool. For my part, you can keep the fighter jets. I heard enough of those screaming engines while in the military, as well as during my forced sojourn in New York City following the September 11 attacks. I just want all those nifty gadgets and gizmos. Is that too much to ask? Probably.

Anyway, back to the focus. Defining patriotism in a post-September 11 society. Or is it really redefining what we’ve always called patriotism? The U.S. adopted a patriot’s act, defining what can and can’t be done in the name of national security. But that act, in my eyes, has nothing to do with patriotism. Neither does waving the flag, driving down the street with a flag on your car antenna, or digging out that moldy flag from the garage that used to fly but once a year – on the Fourth of July, if then.

During the week of February 25, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), who serves as the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, pressed hard for details and answers about how long U.S. troops might be camping out in Afghanistan. Byrd commented that “there’s no end in sight in our mission."

Byrd’s comments have been some of the harshest and most critical since the “War on Terrorism" began, and this, in itself, is significant. The Senate Appropriations Committee has control over spending legislation, and the Pentagon, right now, is spending a lot.

During hearing for Byrd’s committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the Pentagon is estimating that it will cost about $30 billion during 2002 to fight the battles in Afghanistan.

Wolfowitz said that the Pentagon has no idea how long the U.S. mission may last in Afghanistan, and could not give a total of the ultimate cost for the anti-terror campaign because “things change, and they change rapidly. Everything’s gone in ways that are unpredictable."

Byrd, snapping back at Wolfowitz, said, “Instead of concentrating on completing our operations in Afghanistan, the Pentagon seems to be looking for opportunities to stay longer and expand our presence in the region. We seem to be good at developing entrance strategies but not on developing exit strategies. There's no end in sight in our mission in Afghanistan."

What got Byrd so angry? Wolfowitz said that the $30 billion estimate was basically a guess, and was based on assumptions – assumptions that the combat actions continue at the present pace. In plain terms, as long as the U.S. maintains a position of superiority, without many challenges or attacks, things will remain constant.

From September 11 through the end of January, the U.S. has spent roughly $7.4 billion on bombing and fighting in Afghanistan, in addition to providing air patrols over American cities. About $6 billion of that was spent for actions exclusively conducted in Afghanistan.

The next thought the Pentagon had was to help train and equip an army for Afghanistan. Wolfowitz said he had no idea how much it would ultimately cost to conduct the training, as well as equip the army. What I can’t understand about that comment is the Pentagon does know how much it costs to train and equip an American army. It knows how much money is spent on ammunition, uniforms, printing books, and so on. It just strikes with a hollow ring that the Pentagon couldn’t offer any estimate. It isn’t like this same type of mission hasn’t been done – on smaller scale in other countries. In fact, this is one of the missions of the U.S. Army’s Special Forces.

Back in September, when Bush approached Congress, and the nation, announcing the plans to seek retribution for the September 11 attacks and “rout" bin Laden from his hiding places, Congress virtually put Bush upon a pedestal, singing his praise, but even more surprising, standing united on the steps of the Capitol, holding hands, singing, and talking about unity and solidarity. Time, like gravity, has its own way of shaping things. In this instance, what was once almost unfettered support is now turning into questions – questions that need to be asked, should be asked – and more importantly – questions which demand an answer in public.

During the hearings, Byrd said he didn’t want to give Afghanistan or the Pentagon a blank check for unlimited funding, adding in that he also didn't want the United States to be stuck with troops camping out in Afghanistan for years. I agree. As with anything else in life, you have to have a plan – you need career plans, retirement plans, investment plans, plans for major purchases, and so on. In times of conflict, you need plans, as well. Battles may be fought on a day-to-day basis, but wars are fought with an ultimate end in mind. Or at least that’s the theory handed down for centuries.

“When will we know when we’ve achieved victory and it’s time to leave Afghanistan?" Byrd asked Wolfowitz. The reply was stunning, at least in my view: “I can’t tell you when we have won. That’s something, unfortunately, we only know when the terrorists have stopped."