These last few days have weighed heavily on America. One week ago, the worst terrorist attack in history was perpetrated against the US in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. It is likely that over 6,000 people are dead. I cannot think of a greater tragedy to affect the US during my lifetime. The event has hovered over the country like a black cloud - every conversation is in more somber tones than before, every flag flies at half-mast, and every face bears the marks of this catastrophe in melancholy countenance.
This tragedy has resulted in an outpouring of grief, generosity, nationalism and an angry desire for revenge. It has brought out both the best and the worst from Americans: the Red Cross is swamped with blood donations, and the country has pulled together in a way I've never seen before. At the same time, many voices are calling for military action - sustained, costly, retributive war - without waiting for complete evidence or considering long-term consequences.
This event has taken the innocence of a generation, as the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the war in Vietnam did for our predecessors. No longer will we feel as safe flying or living in a major city. More importantly, the attack brutally underscores the danger of our world and the continual presence of people willing to commit atrocious crimes not in the name of some political or moral cause, but out of simple, relentless hate.
So what do we do now?
First, justice must be served, as much as that is possible. The perpetrators of this crime must be found and punished through collaborative effort that ensures due process of law.
Second, countries that shelter terrorists must be prevented from doing so in the future. This is difficult and requires careful use of diplomatic and military force, in conjunction with our allies. Simply bombing a city or attacking an army is pointless and will result in needless casualties on both sides. Counter-terrorism is a new kind of warfare and cannot be accomplished using old strategies of conventional combat. My great fear is that the US will cave to the cause of revenge, rather than justice and prevention, and attack countries like Iraq or Afghanistan without concern for loss of life. That would be an attack against innocent people, compounding the crime already committed.
Third, better intelligence is necessary and terrorists should be kept busy worrying about survival, rather than planning an elaborate strike against the US. The next attack could well make use of chemical or biological weapons - it is incumbent upon us to prepare for this contingency. Although it is impossible to completely stop terrorism, the risk can be minimized.
Lastly, domestic security must be improved. Greater care must be taken at airports, at borders, and in governments to catch terrorists before they can act. However, extreme caution must be taken here, as there is a constant tension between security and personal liberty. My other great fear is that the US will so tighten security as to infringe on privacy and our Fourth Amendment rights against frivolous searches.
We are at a dangerous point. The sleeping giant has awakened and is looking for enemies. Although the US must strive to stamp out terrorism and bring perpetrators to justice, it must do so with the utmost care. I fear some fighting is inevitable, but we must not become embroiled in a conflict in which we cannot get out and cannot accomplish our goals. Our action now must be motivated by security - not by politics or a desire for revenge - and must not cause suffering among civilian populations.
In the past, the US ran into trouble when it did not define its goals, lost sight of those goals, or refused to accept its limitations. Colin Powell defined this in his famous "doctrine" - well worth quoting in full:
"Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined, and understood? Have all other nonviolent policy means failed? Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost? Have the gains and risks been analyzed? How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences? .When the political objective is important, clearly defined, and understood, when the risks are acceptable, and when the use of force can be effectively combined with diplomatic and economic policies, then clear and unambiguous objectives must be given to the armed forces."
We can all hope that Powell will use the same logic now.
Ehren Brav is a senior majoring in physics, math, and political science.
