The attack on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week has been repeatedly described as a "tragedy" by the US government, press, and people. Ironically, though the events of last week are certainly horrific and awful, tragedy may be precisely the wrong word to use. A tragedy, at least in its original meaning, described the downfall of a hero through forces, such as fate, that are beyond his control, thus Hamlet, Othello, and Macbeth. The events of last week were anything but fated to happen, however, and came about because the United States has pursued a foreign policy which has allowed terrorists to exist and operate.
The other refrain that one has heard over and over again in the past week is that America has "lost her innocence." Perhaps this is so for the majority of Americans, but it is not the case for those who have studied and worked in defense circles. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were a long time coming. Numerous reports have circulated through the Pentagon as to the vulnerability of US assets and the likelihood of a terrorist attack, including one report, which specifically cited the possibility that hijackers would crash planes into US buildings and installations. Indeed, given all of the possible scenarios that have been analyzed over the last 10 years, many in the defense community were relieved that the attacks did not involve chemical or biological weapons, which could have caused far more casualties.
For the last ten years, the United States has crafted a foreign policy based on the assumption that our problems in the Middle East and elsewhere could be reasoned out, papers written, and treaties signed which would provide America with security. That policy has had little connection to reality. Since the Gulf War, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and other nations have all sponsored anti-American terrorist groups, providing funds, training, and equipment. The United States allowed this to happen because our leaders lacked the political resolve to carry out a national security policy that did not conform to "international norms." Our government was unwilling to use our power to try and stop such groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Queda from becoming strong.
Last Tuesday's attacks were a direct result of those policies. Whether Osama bin Laden is responsible in part for last week's attacks is irrelevant to the larger fact that no operation of the magnitude of last Tuesday's attack could have been carried off without funding from a state. Between 50 and 100 people had to be supported daily for years while they lived in the United States, conducted reconnaissance, and made plans. Plus, their families back home must have also been supported. Such a massive undertaking means that behind last Tuesday's tragedy rests an Iraq or an Iran.
Without the support of a state, terrorist groups are reduced to mere rabble. Without equipment, money, and a place to train, their effectiveness is drastically reduced. Yes, a terrorist acting alone or with a few other people may be able to cause damage on the order of Oklahoma City, but certainly will be unable to mount an operation comparable to last week's.
Killing individual terrorists will do the United States little good in the long-term. While it may satisfy our need for retribution and revenge, there will always be another terrorist willing to fill the void left by the last one. The only way to minimize the danger from terrorists is to cut their support out from under them: terrorists may be numerous, but states are not.
If the United States wishes to get serious about getting rid of terrorism, it needs to strike out at the countries which enable its existence. This means removing from power those individuals and regimes which actively seek to undermine the United States. In some cases, this will mean the United States must pre-empt other countries and strike first - something we have almost never been willing to do in the latter half of the 20th century. It means supporting opposition groups where we can find them, and giving them money, weapons, and training.
Limited air strikes without a more substantial sustained effort, like the ones levied against Iraq during the 1990s, will prove to be nothing more than a light show, whose only purpose is to demonstrate American power and resolve. Such a show of force will be ineffective on its own, but may be necessary for an American public, which has remained uneducated over the past decade, to learn what types of measures will be necessary to destroy an enemy's ability to threaten the United States.
Those in the international community and at home who phrase the acts of last week as crimes and who believe that the United States must only target those terrorists directly responsible for the attacks still fail to come to grip with the reality that America is at war. Last week's attacks are not crimes - to phrase them as such is to acknowledge that the United States should extend the same rights and protections to the perpetrators of these acts as we would to any other criminal. We should not. Warfare is fundamentally different from internal policing, both in its scale and its methods. It may be necessary to kill many of the terrorist leaders in order to sufficiently break down what have become extensive and sophisticated terrorist networks across the Middle East. Those who worry that engaging in such activity violates the terrorists' civil rights ground their arguments in the theoretical, rather than the actual, circumstances of this case. In truth, the terrorists and the leadership of the countries that support them have no civil liberties and no rights. They are not US citizens and they should not be guaranteed the same protections that we offer our own people.
America is at war, whether we declare it or not. As such, our response to terrorism must be made under that assumption rather than under the mistaken belief that this is an international criminal matter. The United States must target and destroy not only those terrorists who are attacking the United States, but the administrations of countries which have given money, equipment, and training to our enemies. Unless we strike both types of assets with an immense force and a sustained effort, last Tuesday's attacks will become a prelude instead of a cataclysm.
