Rarely is the line between good and evil as clear-cut as it was with the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11. The question of how to best respond to these attacks and deter future aggression can be answered in only one way: an overpowering military response against those responsible for the attacks and those who have abetted the terrorists.
President Bush and the Congress have sensibly adopted this position but there are still some, particularly in academia, who question the need for a military response. Those who choose a pacifist approach fail to see that such a strategy would not fulfill our security needs adequately as it would allow the evil Taliban regime to continue to export destruction.
Most of the nation is solidly behind President Bush, but, as the embers of the fires fade and the rubble is trucked away, calls against military intervention will likely become more common. At Brown University, a rally was held recently in which over 200 students protested the impending military response to the attacks. The basic argument of these activists is twofold: that an attack would only increase deaths from the conflict, and that the use of force would lower the United States to the level of the terrorists. The former argument is simplistic and false over the long run. The latter contention illustrates the moral relativism of the protestors, as the differing targets of force are not given appropriate consideration. Brown, the East coast mecca of moral relativism, seems to produce students who have difficulty discerning the vast moral difference between a cowardly terrorist attack against civilians and the resulting military response of the aggrieved nation. This is unfortunate because this attitude muddies what is otherwise a clear issue.
We are at war in all but name; we need to act accordingly. A forceful military attack would certainly cause the deaths of terrorists and others. But their deaths would prevent further (American) deaths from future attacks. That our new enemy is less clearly defined and more diffuse than past foes in no way lessens the seriousness of our struggle. By depriving the enemy of the means to carry out future attacks on US civilians (suicide bombers and related material), lives would be saved. Eliminating future suicide bombers while they train in Afghanistan and elsewhere is far more efficient and poses less of a threat to our civil liberties than trying to stop them once they are in America.
A look at the 20th century is helpful for it illustrates the benefits of confronting evil and the perils of pacifism or isolationism. Nazism was unequivocally evil. On that point, I suspect even the protesters at Brown would agree. Had the US used force (and taken German lives) sooner in World War II, untold lives would have been saved. The same is true for our involvement in the Pacific against Japan. While we entered the battles belatedly, we eventually emerged victorious. Still, in confronting evil regimes that challenge our way of life, it pays to act quickly and decisively.
Our greatest success following WW II was the repudiation of the ideas of our enemies. The Marshall plan helped nations to rebuild and we provided something even more valuable than aid: a taste of freedom. A half century later, Japan and Germany are vibrant free democracies and two of our strongest allies. The change in Japan was particularly impressive given how culturally dissimilar it is with the Western world. Democracy and freedom are not uniquely Judeo-Christian concepts. These past examples may provide good models for how to proceed against this new threat.
A reluctance to use force seems awfully close to acquiescence. When confronted with a freedom-hating entity bent on destroying the American way of life, we have no choice but to act forcefully and eliminate those responsible for it. Only after the ruling Taliban regime is destroyed can we help the enemy become our ally by exposing it to our ideals of freedom and liberty and our commitment to individual rights. Turkey may provide a good model for any successor state of the Taliban. Turkey is largely Muslim, but still attempts to respect civil liberties within the framework of a secular constitutional republic.
The argument that military action somehow lowers us to the level of terrorists is not compelling. The use of soldiers to attack targets that facilitate the enemy's ability to wage chaos is a far cry from the indiscriminate murder of unarmed civilians. The "level" of our actions, from a moral perspective, must be calculated in light of the rules our enemy has given to the battle. The Taliban does not negotiate or believe in the rule of law. Osama bin Laden was indicted for the first WTC bombing yet they refused to extradite him. If these terrorists have weapons they will use them; they are limited solely by practical and technical concerns. Any path we take will result in deaths. Our choice is whether the deaths will be those of terrorists and their accomplices or those of American civilians. Defensive measures would only move us closer to being a police state and further disrupt our way of life -- precisely what the terrorists desire. Offensive measures are therefore our best option for confronting Osama bin Laden and his network of terror.
It reassures my faith in Americans' willingness to fight to defend our way of life that the vast majority of Americans and nearly all of Congress support military action. Still, the small chorus of dissenters will likely amplify as memories of the attack fade and American lives are lost pursuing Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist organization. I sincerely hope America has the courage and determination to stay the course until the scourge of terrorism is eliminated. Al Qaeda has declared war upon America. It's either us or them. I'm with America.
