The Case for Force

Sunday, September 30, 2001; Page B06

THIS WEEKEND Washington hosts its first antiwar demonstrations of the new era. Public opinion surveys report little support for those who oppose military strikes against terrorists. But the protesters' arguments deserve to be taken seriously nonetheless, and not just because they are seriously offered. Many of us would wish that the pacifists were right -- that this problem could be solved without more killing -- and such wishfulness is likely to translate into more skepticism about a war on terrorism as that war gets tougher.

The United States is entitled to defend itself; the United States is morally obliged to defend itself. That has to be the starting point. The Sept. 11 attacks may not have originated with one nation. But they were an attack against the American nation, part of a larger effort to cripple this country and its way of life. The attacks were planned and perpetrated by enemies of the United States, and the right response is to attack those enemies and seek to eliminate the threat they pose.

Against this view several arguments are offered. One is that U.S. attacks will cause suffering to many innocent people. This is likely true, as it was in the Civil War, World War II and every other conflict; that is why war is always a last resort. The United States should and presumably will seek to minimize civilian casualties; such a strategy is both right and manifestly in the U.S. interest. But if war is the only way to prevent an enemy from taking more American lives, then this concern cannot become immobilizing.

It is argued that the United States should turn to law enforcement and the courts. They are surely part of the answer. But that strategy has been tried as the primary answer for the past decade, and it has failed because it does not account for state sponsorship and shelter of terrorists. It is argued also that terrorism has its roots in poverty and hopelessness. Whatever the merits of this analysis, it is in America's interest to work to reduce such poverty. President Bush's aversion to what he calls "nation-building" in this sense is shortsighted. The United States should be pushing for more democracy and more free enterprise throughout the Middle East, and it should be helping nations that move in the right direction. But this is not an alternative to war; it is part of a larger strategy.

Finally, it is argued that striking back will only perpetuate the "cycle of violence." This is the most alluring argument, and the one that is flat-out wrong. There is a cycle of violence, but it has nothing to do with tit-for-tat. It is a cycle that includes the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia in 1996, the bombing of U.S. embassies in east Africa in 1998 and the attempted sinking of the USS Cole in Yemen last year. These were attacks by Islamic terrorists that killed service members and civilians, American and foreign; the terrorists received shelter and support from anti-American governments; the governments paid no price. It is precisely to break that cycle of violence that the United States now must act.

None of this means the United States should strike out in bloody anger. The Bush administration has wisely counseled patience; it needs time to gather intelligence, prepare its forces, forge coalitions. It has wisely told Americans that the military tool will be only one of many to be wielded in a long campaign. And it has rightly sought to form priorities; not every state sponsor of terrorism can be targeted at once, in the same way and with the same intensity.

But all of these cautions cannot be allowed to obscure the ultimate goal. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that victory in this struggle will come when Americans are no longer fearful. "Children have to go off to school and we have to have reasonable expectation that they'll be coming home from school," the secretary said, and of course that's right. But there's a more measurable, and therefore maybe even more difficult, objective, which President Bush set and the country must stick to: that no government be permitted to harbor or support international terrorist networks that seek to do Americans harm. That goal can't be achieved without force and the threat of force. Much as everyone would wish otherwise, foreign aid and better understanding among peoples -- lovely as both are -- won't by themselves get the job done.