SOON AFTER the horrific events last Tuesday morning, President George W. Bush said that "this is more than an act of terrorism, it is an act of war." What did he mean? Whatever he meant, the question we face today remains: How do we defend our values in a way that does not betray them? How do we affirm our right to live in peace and security in ways that are both effective and moral? On Sept. 14, the president vowed "to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." Then on Sept. 17 he called for a "crusade" against terrorism and remarked that, as in the Old West, Osama bin Laden was "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
This language of war and of crusade should give us pause even as we react in righteous anger to this horrible attack. No state and no war, however just, can "rid the world of evil." In their twisted way, that is what the terrorists thought they were doing. In his Sept. 13 press briefing, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke more carefully: "The president is speaking about war as a way of focusing the energy of America ... against this kind of activity. And war, in some cases, may be military action. But it can also be economic action, political action, diplomatic action and financial actions - all sorts of things can be used to ... prosecute a war."
|
As we "focus our energy" on defining a legitimate response to this attack, let us keep several points in mind:
The acts perpetrated by the terrorists on Tuesday are outside all the conventions and practices we have developed over the centuries about how we wage war. These acts were worse than "war crimes" as defined by international law: They were heinous crimes against humanity. So the perpetrators of these acts went beyond any "declaration of war." They committed acts that have never been permitted in any war. In this sense, then, their "act of terrorism" is far worse than an "act of war." Acts of war are not directed against innocent civilians; they are directed against military forces. And wars are fought by states against states. This "enemy" is far more elusive, a transnational network of terrorists, not an air force, navy or army with a return address.
We in this country have always rejected the "Sherman Doctrine" of war, or the idea that in warfare all restraints disappear, that anything goes, that we can poison wells, kill innocent children, do anything that achieves our objective of victory, however defined. On the contrary, we, and most of our allies, have tried consistently, if not always successfully, to obey the "Law of War," to distinguish combatants from non-combatants, to minimize the loss of life that may occur even in a legitimate military operation. Precisely this effort distinguishes us from war criminals or terrorists. Powell reaffirmed this view: "We always have to be concerned about collateral damage, because we don't want to kill innocent civilians in the prosecution of any of our combat operations." The restraints of war must be maintained if we are to fight justly.
At a time of grief, anger and humiliation - and this attack was indeed humiliating - it is all too easy to heed calls for indiscriminate vengeance. Thus Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia said, "I say bomb the hell out of them. If there's collateral damage, so be it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable." But who was the "they"? The starving people of Afghanistan? Hardly. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted on Sept. 17 that "there are few high value targets" there. We must be wary of calls for indiscriminate retaliation. And we must reject demagogic voices who seek to blame those they disagree with at home for this tragedy. Many of us have been simply stunned by the remarks of Jerry Falwell, who in a Sept. 13 broadcast said, "I point the finger" at "the pagans, the abortionists and the feminists, gays and the lesbians ... and say you helped this happen."
Falwell has perhaps done us a quite unintended service by demonstrating that intolerance and bigotry exist within all religious groups. His remarks are truly beneath contempt, though they do illustrate what can happen in the midst of wars and crusades. Zealots of every stripe despise democratic tolerance, and wars can set them loose. We serve neither our values, nor our interests, if we behave in ways that jeopardize our core values. Thus intolerance is another danger of war talk.
We have already seen depressingly many examples of harassment of those of our fellow citizens who happen to be Islamic, or who have brown skins. Amidst all our celebrations of national unity, let us take care to respect all our neighbors. The murderous hijack-bombers were no more representative of "Islamic values" or "Arab values" than Timothy McVeigh was representative of Christian, "American values."
Finally, fighting terrorism of the sort we have just experienced will require more than military means. Dropping bombs in distant Afghanistan may well do less to guarantee our security than a determined effort to upgrade internal airport security.
This is the real challenge ahead: to fashion sustained measures that can inspire consistent and willing international cooperation over the long haul to prevent other acts of terror. And we must seek ways to address the underlying conditions that give rise to terrorism in the first place. Our goal can be no less than, as Lincoln said at his second inaugural, "to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."
(Michael J. Smith is an associate professor of government and foreign affairs. This article is anadaptation of his remarks at the teach-in on Sept. 13.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 13 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
