In wake of the devastating terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, NATO invoked Article 5 of its charter for the first time in its 52-year history. The article declares that an attack on any member state is an attack on all, and implies full European backing for any US retaliation.
Foreign support is encouraging to many at Tufts who favor military retaliation for the attacks. Students and professors had an opportunity to share their views at a Sept. 25 Colloquium on the implications of an American war on terrorism in Nelson Auditorium. While some supported broad, unilateral retaliation by the US, others advocated a more cautious approach.
"The US is the world's only superpower... [but] we are not invulnerable and we cannot afford to alienate other countries," political science professor Jeffrey Taliaferro said at the colloquium.
Freshman Brian Kessler views these foreign policy dilemmas as a challenge to Bush's leadership.
"This is a good test for President Bush. There is a lot of public opinion swirling around, from racism to revenge. The course of action that Bush chooses could not only determine the direction of his presidency, but also the direction of the world," Kessler said. Freshman Jay Kim also sounded off in support of the President's proposals.
"I believe Bush's 'War Against Terrorism' is an appropriate step to take after what took place on Sept. 11," he said. "However, I think that there needs to be a clear-cut target. Before attacking, American military should seek a way to just punish the Taliban and bin Laden... It would be ironic to kill Afghan civilians to seek revenge for death of thousands of [US] civilians."
While many students and professors support a robust military response, others are more critical, asserting that the President has yet to outline a specific plan of action. A group of Tufts professors held a Teach-In on the roof of Tisch library Friday, discouraging American's from giving President Bush a "blank check" for military action.
By invoking Article 5, NATO has committed each of its members to "restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area", even if it means using armed force, according to CNN. Some call this promise of support a purely symbolic gesture, but under contingency plans being prepared, an assault would involve tens of thousands of ground troops. This is equivalent to the scale of the force deployed in Kosovo.
Over 6,000 victims of the attacks were killed or are missing and presumed dead, but the bloodshed will only continue if the US uses force to cripple Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, NATO defense sources say. Representatives have also said that any multinational offensive would almost certainly involve British forces and would require the active support of Russia. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that Washington wants to build a "global coalition" to fight terrorism. Already, leaders from around the world have pledged their support and dedication for the fight against terrorism. Many at Tufts favoring military action appreciate the support of other nations.
President Bush has warned Americans that they may face a long, hard struggle against terrorist enemies, but also promised that the country would not stand alone. Bush says that his administration will "rally the world."
Freshman Stephanie Leibert also agreed that the US needs to retaliate.
"Although the thought of war frightens me, being a native New Yorker who was in every way affected by this tragedy, I feel as if there needs to be some definite retaliation on our part and the US cannot take the Taliban's refusal to hand over Bin Ladin," Leibert said. "We need to do whatever we can to support and fight for the United States".
President Bush pledged Saturday that the US would use all weapons at its disposal - military, diplomatic, financial and legal - to crush terrorism worldwide, but said "the patience and resolve of the American people" would ensure a US victory.
Junior Devang Dave doesn't necessarily believe in Bush's methods during the aftermath of the tragedy, but he stands by him anyway.
"Even though I don't think very highly of President Bush, at a time like this, I think we have to come together and put faith in whoever is in office. If there's no unity in our own country, then we have little chance of succeeding elsewhere in the world," Dave said.
Senior Lori Kessler, though, is certainly worried about what Bush's decisions might be over the next few weeks.
"Terrorism can go two ways. We shouldn't stoop down to their level and in turn kill more innocent people," Kessler said. Other students are unsure of what role they want the government to take.
"I don't necessarily advocate war, nor support Bush", freshman Lauren Fleisher said. "[But] with events such as these I feel war might be the only way to handle the horrific events that our country was subjected to."
Freshman Annie Atkinson agrees, but stresses that Bush needs to keep the nation informed.
"Because the situation can change so much... we need to know if we are going to go to war or drop bombs. That's not something we want to be surprised about," Atkinson said.
As we watch and wait, Americans will wonder what their part in the big picture will be. Senior Lindsay Braun expressed her belief for the goal of current US foreign policy.
"We're living in a new world now. It's important that we don't give the terrorists what they want," Braun said.
