Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/05/2001 6:24:35 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

Everything that can be done through words in this war has now been done. President Bush said everything that needed to be said in his speech to Congress. He honored our victims and our heroes--some of them, as we have learned, the same people. He expressed gratitude to our friends and presented an ultimatum to our foes. He made it clear that we were at war, not in court; that we seek victory over an enemy, not just punishment for a criminal. He explained who the enemy was not. America is not at war with Muslims who practice their religion in peace. While not defining the enemy too broadly, he took care not to define him too narrowly either: Osama bin Laden got one mention in Bush's speech, almost in passing. Our enemy is "every terrorist group of global reach." Which is to say, anti-American terrorists.

The logic of a "war on terrorism" points beyond itself. Terrorism is, after all, a (particularly immoral) tactic of war, not an ideology or group or goal. A war on terrorism, literally speaking, would be like a war on bombing. The phrase is meant to suggest that our hostility is not confined to those people who can be proved to have materially aided the attacks of September 11. It encompasses all those who mean to do our people harm. Not just bin Laden, then, but his al Qaeda network; not just his network, but the states that abet it and other networks.

Small wonder, then, that President Bush warned us that this war would be long. Bombing bin Laden, if we find him, will not end it. Nor will overthrowing the Taliban. Victory requires either changing the regimes of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan, or frightening them enough to change their behavior toward us.

If this long-term project is to have any chance of success, however, the administration must pursue what it has called the "first phase" of the war--against bin Laden and his Taliban sponsors--with vigor. Yet just days after Bush's speech, the secretary of state was balking at a war on the Taliban. In his post-speech statements, Colin Powell appeared to be trying to make al Qaeda our only target, and these statements were part of a confusing welter of administration talk about what we actually seek in Afghanistan.

No doubt Powell's caution reflects both a military man's reluctance to risk the lives of American soldiers and a diplomat's desire to gather as many countries as possible in coalition (especially Pakistan, which has objected strongly to the idea of removing the Taliban). The former impulse would be praiseworthy were it not, in this instance, self-defeating. Capturing or killing bin Laden and his men will not deter like-minded terrorists; the supply of would-be martyrs is too large. What will save American lives, in the long run, is to make sure that no one in power is tempted to cooperate with such men.

Assembling a coalition to prosecute the war is fine in principle--so long as it is remembered that the war is the purpose of the coalition rather than vice versa. We can do without the dubious aid of countries that demand, as the price of their cooperation, that we betray our true friends or abandon our purpose. And no doubt the size of the coalition will vary with the phase of the war. The Saudis are welcome in our coalition now that we have forced them to cut off their ties to the Taliban. It is very hard, on the other hand, to see what the Syrians have to offer. Rather than keeping our mission foremost in mind, Powell is acting as though our most important consideration is to position President Bush to win the next election in Pakistan.

For over a generation, Arab terrorists--both Islamist and secular--have pledged to fight America to the death. They do it on principle. So should we.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.