Last month, the weekend after the terrorist attacks, I picked up Winston Churchill's six-volume history of World War II at the Durham Public Library's fall book sale. Price? Twenty bucks. Five first editions, one fifth. No dust covers, though. Doesn't matter. I'm not much for collectibles. For me, the important thing is the words.

The tragedies weren't foremost in my mind when I bought the books. Rather, the history buff in me was thinking, "Gee, here's a guy who was intimately involved in the entirety of World War II. He's got to have an interesting perspective."

To the tune of some 5,000 pages or so (including appendices), he does. I've managed to get through the first book and halfway through the second (I like my WC in measured doses; easier to take that way), and I have discovered one fact relevant to our nation's "war" situation today.

We need to get some perspective.

For example, Osama bin Laden is not Adolf Hitler. Afghanistan is not Nazi Germany (or militarist Japan or even fascist Italy). The number of people killed in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania is appalling, but it doesn't even begin to approximate any of the major battles of WWII. And, most obviously, Israel's situation can in no way be compared to Czechoslovakia's problems in 1938.

But we all know Ariel Sharon is a demagogic warmonger. So that one doesn't count.

I don't agree with many of Churchill's ideas or actions, even when Great Britain was at war and Churchill "did his thing" with extraordinary aplomb. Not unlike Ari Fleischer, Churchill "suggested" (very strongly) that ordinary people shun anyone who had a critical word to say about the way the government was pursuing the war. Needless to say, his notions about freedom of the press were, to modern eyes, unacceptable.

On the other hand, I agree that during a state of war some liberties must be restrained slightly. It isn't a good idea for the press to report exact troop movements, for example. This "limiting" can easily be taken too far, however. Especially when the government is imposing those limits. Imprisoning peace activists (or simply "rounding up the fascists and communists by the thousands," as Churchill directed) isn't acceptable, no matter what the situation. We as a nation have learned--a little--from the experience of interning thousands of Japanese Americans during that same time.

The simple fact is we are not facing the largest standing army in the world led by one of the most daring and brilliant military and political tacticians in history (even Churchill had plenty of good things--from a strategic standpoint--to say about Hitler's conquest of continental Europe). We're facing a relatively small group of fanatics who are willing to kill themselves in order to further their cause. These people (almost all men) live in dozens of countries and operate independently from what circles of power they do recognize.

Attacking this enemy is necessary, but not at the expense of making more enemies. Unlike a squabble among national powers, where victory and defeat as concepts are clearly defined, this conflict is more of a police action. As it should be. We're talking about arresting (well, okay, executing) criminals. Okay, so we're bombing what's left of the Afghan military. Among weak and stupid governments, the Taliban is one of the more reprehensible around. You know you've got problems when the Iranian mullahs--not the moderate government, but the far-right religious leaders--refer to you as "reactionary." I shed no tears for the Taliban, but then, they just aren't much of a threat to me or most Americans. The best their finest terrorists can so is take pot shots--which is exactly what the events of September 11 are--at us. Nothing more. They're most happy to let us do the rest.

Which makes the "loose lips sink ships" nonsense coming from the White House almost seditious. As Aaron Sorkin put it in the most eloquent passage of an otherwise preachy special "West Wing" episode last week, the way to ultimately defeat these terrorists, these fanatics, is to keep practicing our freedoms. To consider more than one idea at a time. To accept and even embrace the multitudes of differences among us as a people.

We will never fully defeat terrorism until we are able to eliminate all the have-nots from our world. In other words, no matter how hard we try to end suffering around the world (and we need to try a whole lot harder, mind you), terrorism is a threat that we will face until the end of our days. We can't let an amorphous threat put a shadow over our lives. We need to remember the things that make our country great. Go to your currency for perhaps the simplest expression of the American ideal: E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

That idea, more than a big house or a shiny car or the latest video game, is the American dream. And the more we work to make that true, the greater our nation will become. Churchill repeatedly described the war against Germany as one of democracy vs. totalitarianism. We might do well to describe our own fight as tolerance vs. fanaticism. The stakes aren't quite as high in this conflict, but that doesn't make its successful conclusion any less important.

The most important thing any one of us can do is to fight for each other's freedoms. To give someone you don't know the benefit of the doubt rather than saying, "Hey, he looks Arab. He must know somebody who wants to blow up the U.S. Let's go kick some diaperhead ass!"

Come on, folks, let's all act like real Americans.

Jon Worley still knows the 2nd clarinet part to "The Stars and Stripes Forever."