PRESIDENT Bush is right: The United States must now go to war. A government's first obligation is to protect its citizens. The American government can best meet that obligation by waging a just war against terrorists.
The ultimate object of the monstrous attacks of Sept. 11 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was Western civilization. Radical Islam's defining enemy is the West: It occupies sacred lands, props up hated Israel and various corrupt Arab rulers, and spews out a noxious secular culture that weakens the appeal of Islamic law. Defeating Western civilization requires defeating America, its embodiment and chief instrument. And defeating America requires blackmailing its population. Thus terrorism: We survivors were targets as much as the dead we mourn.
But Western civilization cannot respond to the attack, because it is divided into states, each with its own interests; in fact, contrary to the fantasies of the radical Muslims, the West is not an actor in world politics. Thus it falls to America, the hegemon of the West and its juiciest target, to be the primary respondent. But how ought it to respond? Some, including many of my fellow Christians, have called on the country to forgive the terrorists, pointing out that "violence begets violence." Others say the United States should change its foreign policies so as to remove the terrorists' motivation.
|
Each of these reactions, alone or together, would likely invite more terrorism. Osama bin Laden, the probable perpetrator of these attacks, does not seek absolution from Americans. His conscience is clear. We may want to "move on," but he and his people will not.
Neither would pressuring Israel to rejuvenate the peace process with the Palestinians, nor lifting sanctions against Iraq, appease bin Laden and others. Perhaps a full American withdrawal from the Muslim world would satisfy them. But an abandoned Israel would then have to rely solely on nuclear weapons to defend itself, possibly with horrific consequences. The majority of the world's oil reserves would likely fall into extremely hostile hands, as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be conquered easily, and American power and prosperity in general would plummet, jeopardizing global order. And since the terrorists would then have succeeded spectacularly, why would they stop their assaults?
The mass murderers of Sept. 11, then, must be punished, not absolved or rewarded. But why not pursue them through legal means, as any civilized victim of a crime would do? We could even seize this opportunity to support establishment of an International Criminal Court. After all, America, for now, has the genuine sympathy of much of the world. Is not the solution to lawlessness the rule of law rather than the use of force?
Not always. International law is a fragile thing, and using it now would damage rather than strengthen it. The international system is anarchical: We have no world government, no reliable global police force. Should an international tribunal indict bin Laden, some entity would have to arrest him.
The Taliban who control most of Afghanistan already have refused to surrender him. Bin Laden is a hero to the Taliban, the warrior who (so legend has it) defeated the mighty Soviet Union in the 1980s. In fact, the United Nations Charter authorizes member states to defend themselves against aggression, without a Security Council resolution. Going to war, then, is legal as well as prudent.
But what sort of war will it be? All we can say with confidence is that it will be unlike any previous war. Its primary front will be against the terror networks that stretch like the strands of an invisible spider web across the globe. The United States will utilize special forces and the intelligence services of many governments likewise threatened by terrorism. Some governments, sitting uneasily atop societies that find radical Islam increasingly appealing, will only be able to cooperate if Washington grants them unsavory concessions and massive military and economic aid.
The more dangerous front of the war will be against governments that continue to harbor terrorists. Replacing the Taliban, for example, would require not the pointless and immoral carpet bombing of Afghanistan that some Americans envision, but precision bombing followed by a ground invasion via Pakistan. A land war in that mountainous country easily could become a quagmire for the United States, as it was for the Soviet Union. It would have to be accompanied by an attempt to rebuild Afghanistan, and since the 1960s our record of state building has been dismal.
And if Washington truly intends to fight all governments who harbor any terrorists, then America could find itself at war with most of the Middle East; such a war conceivably could turn into World War III. The Bush administration, then, must be relentlessly careful on this second front.
Opponents of this war are correct that it entails daunting risks. But these opponents must make the case that some alternative is more likely to protect Americans from this grave, unprecedented threat. So far, such an alternative hasn't been offered.
(John M. Owen is an assistant professor of government and foreign affairs.)
Read More
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.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 5 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
