 ake
no mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible
for these cowardly acts." So spoke President Bush in his address
to the nation soon after the catastrophic events of September 11.
I agree with
the president's sentiments but disagree with two specifics in this
statement. First, there was nothing cowardly about the attacks,
which were deeds of incredible — albeit perverted — bravery.
Second, to "hunt down and punish" the perpetrators is
deeply to misunderstand the problem. It implies that we view the
plane crashes as criminal deeds rather than what they truly are
— acts of war. They are part of a campaign of terrorism that
began in a sustained way with the bombing of the U.S. embassy in
Beirut in 1983, a campaign that has never since relented. Occurring
with almost predictable regularity a few times a year, assaults
on Americans have included explosions on airliners, at commercial
buildings, and at a variety of U.S. governmental installations.
Before last week, the total death toll was about 600 American lives.
To me, this
sustained record of violence looks awfully much like war, but Washington
in its wisdom has insisted otherwise. Official policy has viewed
the attacks as a sequence of discrete criminal incidents. Seeing
terrorism primarily as a problem of law enforcement is a mistake,
because it means:
- Focusing
on the arrest and trial of the dispensable characters who actually
carry out violent acts, leaving the funders, planners, organizers,
and commanders of terrorism to continue their work unscathed,
prepared to carry out more attacks.
- Relying
primarily on such defensive measures as metal detectors, security
guards, bunkers, police arrests, and prosecutorial eloquence —
rather than on such offensive tools as soldiers, aircraft, and
ships.
- Misunderstanding
the terrorist's motivations as criminal, whereas they are usually
based on extremist ideologies.
- Missing
the fact that terrorist groups (and the states that support them)
have declared war on the United States (sometimes publicly).
- Requiring
that the U.S. government have unrealistically high levels of proof
before deploying military force. If it lacks evidence that can
stand up in a U.S. court of justice, as is usually the case, no
action is taken. The legalistic mindset thus ensures that, in
the vast majority of cases, the U.S. government does not respond,
and killers of Americans pay little or no price.
The time has
come for a paradigm shift, toward viewing terrorism as a form of
warfare. Such a change will have many implications. It means targeting
not just those foot soldiers who actually carry out the violence
but the organizations and governments that stand behind them. It
means relying on the armed forces, not policemen, to protect Americans.
It means defense overseas rather than in American courtrooms. It
means that organizations and governments that sponsor terrorism
— not just the foot soldiers who carry it out — will pay
the price.
It means dispensing
with the unrealistically high expectations of proof so that when
reasonable evidence points to a regime's or an organization's having
harmed Americans, U.S. military force can be deployed. It means
that, as in conventional war, Washington need not know the names
and specific actions of enemy soldiers before fighting them.
It means retaliating
every single time terrorism harms an American. There is no need
to know the precise identity of a perpetrator; in war, there are
times when one strikes first and asks questions later. When an attack
takes place, it could be reason to target any of those known to
harbor terrorists. If the perpetrator is not precisely known, then
punish those who are known to harbor terrorists. Go after the governments
and organizations that support terrorism.
It means using
force so that the punishment is disproportionately greater than
the attack. The U.S. has a military force far more powerful than
any other in the world: Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars
a year on it and not deploy it to defend Americans?
I give fair
warning: The military approach demands more from Americans than
does the legal one. It requires a readiness to spend money and to
lose lives. Force works only if it is part of a sustained policy,
not a one-time event. Throwing a few bombs (as was done against
the Libyan regime in 1986, and against sites in Afghanistan and
Sudan in 1998) does not amount to a serious policy. Going the military
route requires a long-term commitment that will demand much from
Americans over many years.
But it will
be worth it, for the safety of Americans depends ultimately not
on defense but on offense; on victories not in the courtroom but
on the battlefield. The U.S. government needs to establish a newly
fearsome reputation, so that anyone who harms Americans knows that
retribution will be certain and nasty. Nothing can replace the destruction
of any organization or government that harms so much as a single
American citizen.
To those who
say this approach would start a cycle of violence, the answer is
obvious: That cycle already exists, as Americans are constantly
murdered in acts of terrorism. Further, by baring their teeth, Americans
are far more likely to intimidate their enemies than to instigate
further violence. Retaliation will reduce violence, not further
increase it, providing Americans with a safety they presently do
not enjoy.
|
