Like others, I question the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism endeavors. However, I would not ask the question, “Why won’t the government provide more information?” about its military campaigns and its covert operations, but rather “why is it providing as much information as it is?”

More importantly, why does the American public feel that it has the right to know the minutiae of the government’s actions? Why does the public feel that government officials must provide detailed updates concerning the administration’s decision-making process?

During the Civil War, average Americans did not demand constant knowledge of the inner workings of Lincoln’s cabinet. They did not gripe when they did not receive advance warning of the president’s policies, and they did not complain about not knowing the Union’s military strategy. All that was required to satisfy Americans then was a clear statement of the government’s intentions: the defeat and re-incorporation of the rebellious states into the Union. Now, however, citizens feel that they have the right to know what goes on in presidential meetings, cabinet talks and national security briefings. The American public has come to expect complete exposure of the government and its inner-workings as if our society has always enjoyed this privilege.

In actuality, it has only been with the advent of television and the increased reach and power of the media that this standard has existed. We must be careful to remind ourselves that in all the generations preceding this societal change and technological development, we never had a dictator and our society did not lose its liberties. In fact, I would postulate that society is worse now than it was before this change. In preceding generations, citizens disgusted with government functions, standards and operations would take an active role in politics to effect positive change. Today, we just sit in our houses, watch events unfold before us on the television and respond by doing what we do best: complain.

I firmly believe that in times of national security and war, the media is far too intrusive and can often adversely affect the execution of government operations. Consider the Gulf War, for example: “Great victory,” according to the media. “Kuwait Liberated,” according to the media. Yet why are American troops still there now, sustaining a military presence only to strain our relationships with our Arab allies? Because Saddam Hussein has retained large military capabilities—capabilities which he is not afraid to flex to stamp out the opposition or threaten our allies.

Why is this so? Because former President George H.W. Bush halted the ground campaign at 100 hours, days before our forces could have completely enveloped the Iraqi Republican Guard. And why did he do this? Because 100 hours is a nice round number. The government succeeded in putting a media spin on even its war tactics. The media also devoted much coverage to the “Highway of Death,” and graphically showed the American public the scale of the carnage our forces delivered to the Iraqis. And yet the Republican Guard escaped virtually unscathed because former President Bush ended the war early for fear of alienating the American public by killing more Iraqis.

Does it seem possible that if the American public had seen the savagery of World War I, of World War II, even of Korea, to the extent that the media covered the Gulf War, that the government could have implemented the necessary policies for winning those previous conflicts? Moreover, our military action against the al-Queda terrorist organization will most likely not be a conventional war, but rather a covert one. And when special forces are used, or conventional ones are applied in a covert manner, the American public does not have a need—or the right—to know. Those forces survive and succeed by being secretive; they fail by their being uncovered.

Furthermore, the enemy we face is secretive, hidden and quite possibly still at large in this country. To advertise every counter-terrorist measure that American security personnel intend to implement would be counterproductive.

We elect our government officials on the premise that they have more knowledge and a better understanding than average Americans about the workings of the government. We certainly have the right and the duty to question our representatives’ policies and motives. This does not, however, give us the right to have a say in how that policy is formed. Americans are extremely impatient; they demand instant satisfaction, instant action and instant success. What we need most at the moment, however, is patience. Patience so the government can formulate a plan that is not haphazardly thrown together out of fear of an adverse public reaction.

To say we know nothing of the government’s plans is untrue. The government is making commendable efforts, under the watch of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, to build a multinational coalition, one which stretches across ethnic, religious, ideological and political boundaries. As of last week, Powell had talked to the leaders of more than 80 nations as part of this effort. The immensity of this project is astonishing, especially considering the progress that has already been made. We need a coalition to prevent anti-Americanism from growing throughout the world. We are also moving ships, men and planes into the vicinity of Afghanistan; I consider this a statement of policy in and of itself. And as of last Friday, USA Today reported scouting missions by U.S. and British special forces within Afghanistan.

Clearly, if we have had little insight into the exact nature of President Bush’s plan, that is because it has not yet been finalized. There are more hawkish members of the administration who would like to begin attacking all terrorist supporters, beginning with Iraq. Some want to avoid a ground war in Afghanistan; others don’t.

Rather than force them into a hastily conceived decision, which we could all regret later, the American public must have the patience, faith and stoicism to see this endeavor through to the end, however long that may take.

Brian J. Cruise ’03 is a government concentrator in Eliot House.