Drain the ponds of terror

(September 25) - President George W. Bush gave the best speech he has ever given, has about the highest approval rating in American polling history, and has the American people squarely behind him in an all-out war against terrorism. Looking from afar, we marvel at the unity and determination of the American people, and salute them with all our hearts.

Yet the very awesomeness of American power, when brought together for a single aim, raises the stakes enormously. Behind American unity lies a raging debate: How widely should the net be spread? Who are America's real targets? How will victory be defined?

The president, to his enduring credit, prepared the American people for a comprehensive war against terrorism, not just against the one man whose face is on the cover of almost every news magazine in America: Osama bin Laden. There is no doubt that this man must be eliminated. It is clear, however, that the elimination of one terrorist, or one terrorist's network, does not a war on terrorism make.

Bush clearly understands this. Speaking to a small group of US senators in a way that says even more than his fine speech to Congress, Bush said: "When I take action, I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." Decisive is the right word. But what does it mean to be decisive in the war against terror?

Decisive means eradicating state-sponsorship of terror. And eradication means rejecting the notion that the US and its allies must choose which terrorist states to go after, rather than change the rules for all of them at once. The Bush administration is wisely giving even the guiltiest regimes, such as Iran, a chance to change their ways. The rules were different before September 11. But now new rules have to be written, and they have to be enforced not just by the US but by Europe - at a minimum - as well.

The rules should be that any country that hosts or supports terrorist groups (including religious organizations that advocate terrorism), whose passports or diplomatic pouches are used by terrorists, or that does not cooperate in hunting down or handing over terrorists will be treated as a terrorist state. All terrorist states should be subject to complete ostracism by Western nations: no diplomatic relations, no trade, no banking transactions, and no air travel.

If the US declares it will be working with its close allies to define what it means to be a terrorist state and the draconian sanctions that will be taken against such states, there will be a scramble by countries to comply with the new rules even before they are enforced. America's NATO allies will not stand in the way on this if the US is determined.

The demonstrated determination of the West to use all its economic and diplomatic clout against all terrorist states will produce a number of "converts" and isolate the toughest nuts to crack. We already know one leader that will be in the holdout category: Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

It is impossible to decisively beat terrorism without removing the Mother of All Terrorist Regimes. Serious students of the issue, such as former CIA director R. James Woolsey, are convinced that Saddam was behind the September 11 monstrosity. OC Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Malka may be have been too hasty in exonerating Iraq in this case. There is certainly a convincing case that Saddam was behind the first attempt to topple the World Trade Center in 1993.

But in the unlikely event that Saddam had no role in this latest attack, he is certainly no less worthy of removal than he was before September 11. Saddam had to go even before this, because he is openly defying the UN Security Council's efforts to disarm him of weapons of mass destruction and therefore poses a terrorist threat much greater than Osama bin Laden. Saddam is busy building a nuclear, biological, and chemical umbrella for terrorism. Most importantly, Saddam is much weaker than he is made out to be. He already does not control the "no-fly" zones maintained by the US and Britain. With considerably less force than was employed during the Gulf War, the US could help the Iraqi National Congress take over most of Iraq and recognize it as the legitimate provisional government.

Within a short time, most of Iraq's military would defect to the opposition, and Saddam would effectively be transformed into the mayor of Baghdad. Most of his much vaunted missile sites would be out of his control, and he would be too busy fighting for his life to continue his race to rearm. The US and the Iraqi opposition would both commit to keeping Iraq whole and to holding free elections to determine Iraq's new government.

The combination of setting and enforcing new rules for terrorist states and toppling Saddam should be at the core of America龝 plan to eradicate state-supported terrorism. Hunting for bin Laden is necessary, but it is like angling for a particularly big fish, when what is needed is to drain the pond. The pond can be drained, using only a fraction of the economic and military power available to the West. Doing so now will be immeasurably cheaper, in blood and treasure, than the alternatives, and will change the world we live in radically for the better.