ask you to uphold the values of America," President Bush said to Congress and the nation. That will be a fair test of his policy for dealing with terrorism as the policy unfolds: Does it uphold the values of America?

Our government's actions both external and internal should be judged by that standard. Will any military action we take be measured and precise, in keeping with a concern for innocent civilians, or will anger and frustration lead to broader, less discriminating attacks? In attempting to root out terrorists within our borders, will we have a decent respect for privacy and due process of law?

Not only humanity and our fealty to law call for attention to those concerns. We have urgent reasons of self-interest to make sure that our struggle against terrorism sticks to American values.

Take the external first. The great danger here is that military attacks of too sweeping a character ・by the heavy U.S. bombers already sent to the Middle East, for example ・would play into the hands of the terrorists and their presumed leader, Osama bin Laden.

A noted military scholar, Sir Michael Howard, former Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, made the point compellingly in The Times of London a week ago. Tracing examples of terrorism over the last 130 years, he said one of the terrorists' principal aims has always been "to provoke . . . savage acts of suppression" that win sympathy for their cause.

Sir Michael said President Bush must be under heavy pressure "to respond in kind, and reply to terror with terror. . . . But were he to do so, he would only multiply the number of the enemies of the United States throughout the world. . . . The strategy of provocation would have won, and Mr. Bush would be playing out the script written for him by the terrorists themselves."

The New York Times reported the other day, in an important story by Patrick E. Tyler and Elaine Sciolino, that the Bush administration was divided on how sweeping the military response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington should be. Secretary of State Colin Powell was for a measured response, probably targeting Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan. A faction led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz wanted to attack Iraq as well.

An attack on Iraq would be intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power. (Right-wing voices on television have been urging just that, blaming President Bill Clinton for the fact that Saddam is still there. But of course it was the first President Bush who failed to remove Saddam at the end of the gulf war.)

When George H. W. Bush decided not to move against Saddam, the gulf war coalition had 500,000 ground troops on the scene. The idea of undertaking such an effort now seems to me close to lunacy ・not only on military grounds but because it would arouse an Islamic backlash menacing to the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

In his speech to Congress President Bush did not lay out the scope of planned retaliation. He made forcefully clear that there would be military action, as there must be. But he also, wisely, spoke of financial and other steps against the terrorists. And he eschewed his earlier gun smoke rhetoric.

On internal issues, too, the president left the hard questions unanswered. He said law enforcement must have "the additional tools it needs to track down terror." But what tools? Proposals by Attorney General John Ashcroft for greater government powers of surveillance and detention have raised alarms among both liberals and conservatives. If Congress acts without real consideration and care, it could undermine the very quality of freedom under law that most of the world admires.

Americans, we passionately believe, are a humane people. We showed that in restoring wounded economies abroad after World War II, even those of our enemies, Germany and Japan. In due course I think we must make an effort of similar scale to relieve the poverty and misery that are seedbeds for terror in the Middle East.

But right now we need to make sure that we do not forget ourselves in our immediate response to the terrorists' criminal assault. President Bush used three words repeatedly in his speech: "freedom," "patience," "justice." They are the right words.