Left Column...
Left Column...
So what exactly is George Bush Jr. going to do?
He's already made a couple of major mistakes here. He declared that an act of criminal terrorism was actually an act of war. He has vowed to eradicate terrorism from the face of the earth. He has promised the American people that he will destroy evil in the world.
We're all getting carried away here. It sounds ridiculous, considering the scale of the disaster, the World Trade Centre attack, but we are getting carried away.
First of all, it was not an act of war. You have to have two parties for an act of war and both parties have to be nations in some form or another. So far, what we have, is a tightly bound group of conspirators. We have about 20 men against the entire military and industrial might of the United States of America. If this was a war, it would have been over before it started.
Bush has yet to show the world any evidence of complicity of any sovereign nation.
By calling it an "act of war", Bush actually diminishes the horror of what the fanatics did. If it's an act of war, it falls into the category of Dresden and London during World War II, or Hiroshima, or My Lai, or any of dozens of other wartime atrocities that history tends to excuse because it regards them as examples of excess, not criminality.
On this issue, I consider myself harsher than Bush: it was an act of criminal terror. It was mass murder.
By calling it an "act of war", Bush probably hoped to justify a vigorous and powerful U.S. response. The next question, of course, is what is that response going to be?
It seems to me that there are three major options.
He can blame a particular nation and launch a full-scale attack and invasion of that nation.
He can blame a particular person or group and launch a limited attack with the aim of killing or apprehending that person or group. Or...
He can blame a network of organizations and political entities and launch numerous limited attacks on their bases and hideouts.
Is there some other viable option I missed? I can't think of it. I tried to think of it because these three options aren't really very good.
With his grandiose rhetoric, Bush has created high expectations. Americans are waiting to see a big development. Can he deliver?
Option 1 is hopeless. There are good reasons why the U.S. would not want to invade or occupy Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen or whoever. It would take a long time, and there would be an enormous cost in lives. It would likely introduce instability into a potentially volatile region. It would create a large pool of new, future terrorists. It would create alarm and concern in China and Russia and Pakistan. If the U.S. occupied the nation, it would have to constantly contend with terrorists and insurrectionists.
It would result in disaster.
The Soviets couldn't take Afghanistan. It is a nation of mountains and deserts, with no infrastructure left, after the Soviet Occupation, to destroy. An invasion would unite the fractious forces that are currently at each other's throats, as well as recruit tens of thousands of Islamic volunteers from other nations, some of whom will try to bring the war home to America. Most importantly, it would destabilize Pakistan.
Pakistan has a bomb.
I can't believe the U.S. will adopt this insane strategy.
Option 2 is a more attractive, viable option, but won't be effective. It's too easy for the targets to move and hide and avoid interdiction. If it is the option Bush chooses, expect a ton of spin on the results. We got them. We got most of them. We got a lot of them. But nobody is going to be able to pretend we got all of them, and the ones we miss will strike back with a vengeance. Two, three years down the road, someone is going to ask an embarrassing question: do you feel safer today than you did in 2000?
Option 3 will look the most impressive with a new CNN logo and theme music. Lots of maps and diagrams, showing a combination of missiles, bombs, and paratroops, taking out numerous targets, and making a mighty impression on the global reach of the all-powerful U.S. military.
Once again, I doubt it will be particularly effective, but it will look effective, and when terrorists continue to strike back, it can be made to look more like the results of having intractable enemies than foolish foreign policy. American allies in the region-- Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt-- can breathe a big sigh of relief as the Americans pack up their carriers and rush home.
What should they do?
They should launch a new era of activism abroad with a concerted effort to broker peace in Israel, and to promote economic development in democratic third world nations. The U.S. should sign the Kyoto accord and law of the sea treaties, and ease up on it's demands in the areas of trade and intellectual property rights.
It should forgive huge amounts of global debt.
That last item would cost it a lot less than most of the military options.
Copyright © 2001 Bill Van Dyk All rights reserved.
