An Important Distinction and Decision
by Charles V. Peña, Senior Defense Policy Analyst, Cato
Institute
9/15/2001
There should be no doubt - no question whatsoever - that the
United States should find the perpetrators of the World Trade Center and
Pentagon attacks and use whatever military force is necessary against them. If
the mastermind behind these heinous acts is indeed Osama bin Laden, then our
goal should be the total destruction of his al Qaeda terrorist network. If it
is bin Laden, then the Taliban government in Afghanistan is complicit and
should suffer the wrath and might of a U.S. response. Indeed, President Bush
made clear from the outset that the United States would "make no
distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who
harbor them."
But we are also at a crossroads. We need to make the
distinction-and ensuing decision-between retaliation against those responsible
specifically for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks versus a war on
terrorism. These are two very different things. The former is a daunting - but not
insurmountable - task of tracking down the apparatus of a distributed terrorist
network and destroying it. The latter - "a global assault against
terrorism in general," according to Secretary of State Colin Powell - is
completely uncharted waters.
At the moment, it is understandable that people would rally around
the flag and support such a war. But we must also consider what that means.
Tuesday's catastrophic events were likely the result of a single
terrorist group (most think it to be Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda). A more
broad-scale attack against terrorist groups could potentially have the effect
of galvanizing fundamentalist Islamics to engage in an all-out holy war against
the "American infidel." More radical elements within the Islamic
movement might be emboldened to topple more moderate regimes. And the backlash
against a more widespread U.S. response could be a swelling of ranks within the
more radical factions. With over one billion Muslims in the world, these
potential effects are not insignificant.
Even if it does not become a jihad, is the American public
prepared to go to war against terrorism? Because the war will not be war as we
know it.
CNN has reported that the Defense Department intends to ask that
50,000 reservists be called up for "homeland defense." Are we
prepared to have Humvees and soldiers in fatigues toting automatic weapons
routinely patrolling the streets of our cities?
Do we understand that going after terrorists is not a routine
military operation such as the Gulf War? We won't be facing an opposing army.
And it won't be confined to a single geographic region. We would not be going
to war against any one country and its armed forces. Instead, the enemy will be
individuals and small groups of people, living in shadows and moving from one
unknown place to another in cities spanning the globe. We already know that
cruise missile strikes from afar won't do the job. The question is whether
ground troops can.
The public seems to be willing to accept casualties-both troops
and perhaps even innocent civilians. But if part of the war on terrorism means
that terrorists will bring the war home to us, do we understand that casualties
are likely to include more American civilians being killed here and abroad? We
may wage war against the terrorists using military forces, but the terrorists
will not limit themselves to striking just military forces. Is that a price we
are willing to pay?
Union General William Sherman is famous for the phrase "War
is hell." It is not pretty or easy. It is a messy, ugly business. But a
war on terrorism may be a hell we have never seen or experienced. Before we
enter it, perhaps we should see whether retaliatory action confined to the
perpetrators of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks makes the point
that needs to be made. We can always escalate our efforts, if that is
ultimately required. But once we go to war, there can be no turning back. We
ought not to make that our first step.