War and peace

Our fight against terrorism gives the U.S. a historic opportunity to become a kinder, gentler force in the world

By Gary Kamiya

Oct. 8, 2001 | As the first missiles struck Afghanistan Sunday night, it was hard not to feel that America had just jumped off a cliff in the dark. In his speech to the nation, President Bush told American troops, "Your mission is defined. The objectives are clear. Your goal is just." The goal -- destroying Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, al-Qaida, and bringing down the loathsome Taliban regime -- is indeed just. But the mission, the battle against world terrorism, is neither defined nor clear. In fact, it is one of the most ill-defined and potentially dangerous campaigns we have ever embarked upon.

This does not mean we should not undertake it. We should. There can be no serious argument that the destruction of al-Qaida and the removal of the Taliban are not morally justified. Six thousand innocent people lie dead at the hands of bin Laden and his associates, victims of one of the most monstrous crimes in history. Not to seek to bring those responsible to justice is unthinkable. As for the grotesque Taliban regime that shelters al-Qaida and refuses to hand over its leader, neither the Afghan people nor the world will weep when their bloody reign comes to an end.

Beyond justified retribution, there is the urgent need to prevent future attacks. The very existence of bin Laden and his network is a threat. As long as dedicated fanatics with the will and means to strike devastating blows exist, no country or individual that does not subscribe to their rigid belief system is safe.

The only argument against military action worth taking seriously (the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of some ossified thinkers on the Left is not worth refuting) is that the cure will be worse than the disease. If we strike at the Taliban, so this argument goes, we may create thousands of bin Ladens where now there are hundreds. Since ultimately an open society cannot defend itself against suicidal terrorists, it is rash to risk creating a whole generation of new ones. Since al-Qaida and its shadowy associates are so dispersed, with operatives in dozens of countries, even destroying terrorists in Afghanistan will not significantly affect global terror operations. A gaudy American strike may satisfy the public's desire for revenge, but it's strategically shortsighted and ultimately irresponsible.

This argument cannot be dismissed out of hand, and the bellicose commentators who accuse its adherents of being some kind of "Fifth Column" are doing their country no service. However, I believe that in the end it is not convincing. The urgent need to destroy the threat posed by bin Laden's Afghanistan-based network trumps the possibility of excessive "blowback" (spy-speak for unintended consequences, i.e., the creation of an unacceptable number of new terrorists) from a military operation. In any case, there is no guarantee that potential terrorists would not strike against the United States even if we did not attack al-Qaida.

Without being able to look into the mind of the actual and potential Islamic terrorists in the world, all judgments about the consequences of American military action are speculative. Bin Laden's chilling videotape, which was quickly disseminated all over the Muslim world on Sunday, will play well in some quarters, with its popular appeals to the Palestinian cause and the human costs of the U.S. embargo on Iraq. (Many Palestinians in the West Bank Gaza welcomed bin Laden's support for their cause, leading to violent confrontations with the Palestinian Authority Monday.) Combined with rage at America for attacking a Muslim state, perhaps it will breed a few new terrorists. But without the resources and command and control functions offered by a network, terrorists are severely handicapped. And in a larger sense, it seems reasonable to conclude that even the more fundamentalist and anti-American Muslims will give the U.S. a pass -- if we confine ourselves to a short-term and highly specific military action against bin Laden and the Taliban, limit civilian casualties as much as possible, help Afghanistan get back on its feet again and take tangible and visible steps to address the root causes of Islamic anger at America.

Even more daunting than the military campaign against bin Laden's forces is the long-term challenge of establishing peace and security in the world. In this struggle, the plowshare must play a far greater role than the sword.

The fact is that our national tragedy has given us -- as tragedies sometimes do -- an extraordinary opportunity to both lead and join the world. If we join the world -- if we continue to treat the rest of the world with the same respect with which we are treating it now -- we can help create a new era of international cooperation, in which the entire civilized community is brought closer together by a shared struggle against barbarism. If we do not, if we revert to a policy of short-sighted realpolitik, or worse, aggressive military adventurism against states like Iraq or Syria, we run the risk of turning what is still merely an infection of hatred into a cancer. And we will lose a unique chance to make the world a more just place.

In the days, months and years ahead, America has the opportunity -- and the necessity -- to begin winning the hearts and minds not merely of the Islamic world, but the world as a whole. To do so, we must commit to a humanitarian policy that is not merely situational. We must undertake a fundamental reappraisal of our morally flawed and strategically disastrous Mideast policy. And, above all, we must reconsider our entire shortsighted, me-first approach to foreign affairs.

Next page: America's newfound humility