WASHINGTON, D.C. - As I write this, a sniper is on the loose, gunning down innocents and baffling law enforcement. This writer, in fact, biked in the vicinity of the Home Depot the day before one of the victims was shot there, a sobering thought.

Is the shooter a psycho in the tradition of David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz? Or could al Qaeda or some other terrorist group be involved? Whatever the case, the attacks call to mind some basic principles.

During the Cold War, when realists wanted to counter idealists and pacifists, they would remind them that the world is a dangerous and violent place. It still is, perhaps more so, something easily forgotten in suburban America where the major concerns are stock prices, day care, and maintenance of the Volvo. A strong case can be made that a multi-polar world is more dangerous than a bi-polar one.

As the shootings continue, along with the wrangling over Iraq, it emerges that North Korea’s nuclear weapons plan is much farther along than some observers thought. Nuclear bombs are really the only weapons of mass destruction, and North Korea deploys some impressive delivery systems. North Korea is also the domain of Kim Jong Il, a Stalinist and the son of Kim Il Sung, also a Stalinist and the man who brought you the Korean War, which has yet to be officially ended. This Stalinist regime is responsible for terrorist acts, such as blowing up airplanes, and has recently admitted to abducting Japanese citizens. The country is literally starving, which makes it even more dangerous.

All responsible policy, foreign and domestic, must begin with the knowledge of the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. In practical terms, particularly around election time, this means that nobody’s wish list is a valid criticism of someone’s actual record in dealing with the world.

Those on the conservative side agree that it is the role of the state to wield the sword. Those in charge of this task need to make threat assessment a full-time job. To borrow from the Holy Grail, consult the book of armaments to see if we have what is necessary to counter genocidal Islamic fascists on one hand and genocidal Stalinists on the other. Whatever you need, get it. As George Will put it, if you don’t hold the strongest hand,
you have two choices: bluff or fold.

The cause requires people, of course. It was with a largely conscript army that America and the allies took down a cracked National Socialist in Europe and the suicide bombers of imperial Japan in the Pacific. The volunteer military, which this writer supports, has shown it can do the job. A volunteer military, of course, must recruit. There is some merit, I suppose, to “be all you can be,” but maybe the time has come for something along the lines of “join the Army and fight terrorism.”

Like the sniper, terrorists enjoy the advantage of surprise. They will fall in due time, and so will the sniper, but not without a fight. That’s the way it is in the real world, which will always be a dangerous place.

K. Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He can be reached via email at klbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.