US must avoid extremes in responding 

By W. James Antle III
web posted October 1, 2001

The United States has both a vital national interest and moral
obligation to mount a strong response to the terror recently
unleashed upon our soil. This is important not merely to exact
revenge, as such actions would in fact be undertaken in just self-
defense, but to help deter further attacks against American
citizens.

Yet it is also important for our leaders to show restraint, as total
war against the entire Arab world is neither in our interests nor
just. The result of an overreaction would likely yield more
terrorism rather than less and visit untold suffering on populations
that already are too familiar with misery and bloodshed.

President George W. Bush received some criticism for
"overheated cowboy rhetoric" when he stated unequivocally that
he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." As evidence tying
those who crashed commercial airliners into both towers of the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands, to bin
Laden's Al-Qaidia terrorist cells continues to mount, the validity
of these words is clear. From the original World Trade Center
bombing in 1993 to the attack on the USS Cole, our limited
criminal-justice response to terrorism has proved ineffective in
the face of organized terror campaigns. Only by going to the
source of this terror and cutting it off directly can we reduce our
vulnerability.

While the men who hijacked the airplanes in the events of
September 11 may have been willing to die for terrorist
objectives, bin Laden and his top lieutenants aren't as
unconcerned with their physical safety. They have gone into
hiding whenever credibly threatened and bin Laden is constantly
under heavy guard. Reportedly, due to an enlarged heart he
refuses to ever be far from his personal physician. It is not
necessarily the case that those who organize, plan and fund
terrorist campaigns do not fear losing their lives.

Killing those responsible for terrorism against the United States is
not only consistent with the just war doctrine, as Al-Qaidia is
clearly waging a war against our people and our way of life, but
it is an effective way of disrupting terrorist cells and preemptively
striking against those most likely to initiate future attacks. I
recently defended Israel's policy of targeted killings as a method
of eliminating those who have committed and are actively
planning terrorist campaigns. This practice now needs to be
adopted by the United States, which has previously criticized it.

Rather than creating more enemies among the Afghan people
through carpet bombings, carelessly launched cruise missiles or a
full-scale invasion, we should dispatch Special Forces units to
hunt down and either capture or kill bin Laden and his
associates. This will not be easy and will require a great deal of
logistical support. There is also significant risk involved, as our
intelligence will need to be precise and the potential for ambush
is high. But these very well trained and physically fit soldiers are
up to the challenge of rooting out vile terrorists and
accomplishing this critical mission.

The United States must also support the Northern Alliance and
others in Afghanistan working to overthrow the Taliban. The
Taliban actively supports and gives refuge to Al-Qaidia, in
addition to being a destabilizing influence in the entire region. This
regime aggressively abrogates the rights of its own people and
threatens moderate Arab states. Defeating those aligned with
Osama bin Laden requires support for the ouster of the Taliban.

Such actions would indeed constitute an ambitious but serious
and achievable war against terrorism. But it would also be a
more limited and prudent response than the nation building some
would like us to engage in to remake the entire Middle East in
our democratic capitalist image.

If some paleoconservatives are unrealistic to suggest that a
retrenchment of US world involvement absent a military
response against perpetrators is the solution, neoconservatives
are similarly off-base in pounding the drums for a broader war
under the guise of benevolent American hegemony. In a letter to
President Bush signed by 41 leading journalists, foreign-policy
experts and center-right political figures (Jack Kemp to his credit
notably refused to sign, alone among his Empower America
associates), there was a call to bring the war to Baghdad and
overthrow Saddam Hussein. The letter also advised the
president to make eradicating Hezbollah a priority even if
retaliation against Syria and Iran is required. The drafter of this
open letter was William Kristol, the neoconservative leading light
who during the 2000 presidential campaign was encouraging
John McCain to embrace a foreign policy based on "rolling
back" authoritarian regimes across the globe.

David Tell, one of Kristol's associates at The Weekly Standard,
implied that he wants conflict not only with those harboring and
assisting terrorists now and in the future, but also countries that
have sponsored them in the past. The Wall Street Journal has
editorialized in favor of strikes against portions of Syria, Sudan,
Algeria and "perhaps even in parts of Egypt." How this would be
beneficial to our relationship with Egypt and other moderate
Arab states that were part of our Persian Gulf War coalition and
our Cold War allies is unclear.

Nor is it clear how quickly this would metastasize into a full-
blown war involving much of the Arab world. But if it did it is
important to note the scope of such a war, as it would run two
continents and possibly include countries ranging from Algeria to
Afghanistan. The probable result would be to imperil the
international coalition against terrorism President Bush and
Secretary of State Colin Powell are working to build, crucial less
because of other countries' military support than their intelligence
assistance, and result in a conflict between perhaps six or seven
Islamic states against the United States and Israel.

Endangering our alliances and intelligence-gathering capabilities
while making new enemies and launching missiles throughout the
Middle East is not likely to help prevent terrorism. Bin Laden
doesn't want a war against terrorism with Jordan, Egypt and
Saudi Arabia still allies with the Americans. He wants this to be
seen as a war between Christians and Jews in the West and the
Islamic world, with the United States and Israel sharing the title
of "Great Satan."

A crusade of this type should not be what America wants and
the total war and extra-constitutional global policeman role is not
what America needs. President Bush was correct that any
country that supports terrorism going forward should be treated
as a hostile regime. But this does not mean we must go to war
with every single one of them. Dependent upon the degree of
their involvement in terrorist activity against the American people
and our allies, we can impose a variety of sanctions
proportionate to their offenses. If Iraq or some other government
is found to have provided Al-Qaidia the intelligence information it
needed to carry out these attacks, then yes, we should visit
military action against them. We should also rescind the
executive order barring federal agents' participation in
assassinations. But we should not engage in lengthy wars to try
to establish new governments in foreign lands, as it is not
feasible, productive or within our government's constitutional
mandate. We cannot simply impose our own political institutions
and structures in the countries of the Middle East. Attempting to
do so will only create a fertile climate for more terror against a
self-styled benevolent empire.

Our response as a country must be strong, firm and tethered to
the principles of swift justice. But it must also be measured and
well thought-out. We must avoid the extremes of defeatism and
pacifism on the one hand and hubris and endless conflict on the
other.

W. James Antle III is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and
can be reached at wjantle@enterstageright.com.

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com