Author: Daniel Pipes
Publication: National Review
Date: October 1, 2001
URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/01oct01/war_pipes100101.shtml
"Make no mistake: The United States
will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts." So
spoke President Bush in his address to the nation soon after the catastrophic
events of September 11.
I agree with the president's sentiments
but disagree with two specifics in this statement. First, there was nothing
cowardly about the attacks, which were deeds of incredible - albeit perverted
- bravery. Second, to "hunt down and punish" the perpetrators is deeply
to misunderstand the problem. It implies that we view the plane crashes
as criminal deeds rather than what they truly are - acts of war. They are
part of a campaign of terrorism that began in a sustained way with the
bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, a campaign that has never
since relented. Occurring with almost predictable regularity a few times
a year, assaults on Americans have included explosions on airliners, at
commercial buildings, and at a variety of U.S. governmental installations.
Before last week, the total death toll was about 600 American lives.
To me, this sustained record of
violence looks awfully much like war, but Washington in its wisdom has
insisted otherwise. Official policy has viewed the attacks as a sequence
of discrete criminal incidents. Seeing terrorism primarily as a problem
of law enforcement is a mistake, because it means:
* Focusing on the arrest and trial
of the dispensable characters who actually carry out violent acts, leaving
the funders, planners, organizers, and commanders of terrorism to continue
their work unscathed, prepared to carry out more attacks.
* Relying primarily on such defensive
measures as metal detectors, security guards, bunkers, police arrests,
and prosecutorial eloquence - rather than on such offensive tools as soldiers,
aircraft, and ships.
* Misunderstanding the terrorist's
motivations as criminal, whereas they are usually based on extremist ideologies.
* Missing the fact that terrorist
groups (and the states that support them) have declared war on the United
States (sometimes publicly).
* Requiring that the U.S. government
have unrealistically high levels of proof before deploying military force.
If it lacks evidence that can stand up in a U.S. court of justice, as is
usually the case, no action is taken. The legalistic mindset thus ensures
that, in the vast majority of cases, the U.S. government does not respond,
and killers of Americans pay little or no price.
The time has come for a paradigm
shift, toward viewing terrorism as a form of warfare. Such a change will
have many implications. It means targeting not just those foot soldiers
who actually carry out the violence but the organizations and governments
that stand behind them. It means relying on the armed forces, not policemen,
to protect Americans. It means defense overseas rather than in American
courtrooms. It means that organizations and governments that sponsor terrorism
- not just the foot soldiers who carry it out - will pay the price.
It means dispensing with the unrealistically
high expectations of proof so that when reasonable evidence points to a
regime's or an organization's having harmed Americans, U.S. military force
can be deployed. It means that, as in conventional war, Washington need
not know the names and specific actions of enemy soldiers before fighting
them.
It means retaliating every single
time terrorism harms an American. There is no need to know the precise
identity of a perpetrator; in war, there are times when one strikes first
and asks questions later. When an attack takes place, it could be reason
to target any of those known to harbor terrorists. If the perpetrator is
not precisely known, then punish those who are known to harbor terrorists.
Go after the governments and organizations that support terrorism.
It means using force so that the
punishment is disproportionately greater than the attack. The U.S. has
a military force far more powerful than any other in the world: Why spend
hundreds of billions of dollars a year on it and not deploy it to defend
Americans?
I give fair warning: The military
approach demands more from Americans than does the legal one. It requires
a readiness to spend money and to lose lives. Force works only if it is
part of a sustained policy, not a one-time event. Throwing a few bombs
(as was done against the Libyan regime in 1986, and against sites in Afghanistan
and Sudan in 1998) does not amount to a serious policy. Going the military
route requires a long-term commitment that will demand much from Americans
over many years.
But it will be worth it, for the
safety of Americans depends ultimately not on defense but on offense; on
victories not in the courtroom but on the battlefield. The U.S. government
needs to establish a newly fearsome reputation, so that anyone who harms
Americans knows that retribution will be certain and nasty. Nothing can
replace the destruction of any organization or government that harms so
much as a single American citizen.
To those who say this approach would
start a cycle of violence, the answer is obvious: That cycle already exists,
as Americans are constantly murdered in acts of terrorism. Further, by
baring their teeth, Americans are far more likely to intimidate their enemies
than to instigate further violence. Retaliation will reduce violence, not
further increase it, providing Americans with a safety they presently do
not enjoy.
