It’s the Same War
One of the criticisms of America’s determination to disarm Iraq according to its UN obligations is that it would detract from America’s “war on terror” or “war on terrorism” (in quotation marks because they are both sloppy syntax and sloppy policy). Is terror a verb or a noun — the state of being terrorized, or the act of terrorism? If people who aren’t blown up are terrified by the idea that they might be, is that terrorism? Do we fight terror with Valium? How do we know when we’ve won and can stop fighting? Six months without a bomb? A year?
One of the criticisms of America’s determination to disarm Iraq according to its UN obligations is that it would detract from America’s “war on terror” or “war on terrorism” (in quotation marks because they are both sloppy syntax and sloppy policy). Is terror a verb or a noun — the state of being terrorized, or the act of terrorism? If people who aren’t blown up are terrified by the idea that they might be, is that terrorism? Do we fight terror with Valium? How do we know when we’ve won and can stop fighting? Six months without a bomb? A year? If victory is time dependent, the initiative remains with the terrorists. If they attack after we declare victory, the victim government will have to minimize its response, lest it be accused of endangering the “peace.”
President Bush wisely chose the formulation, “the war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them.” Terrorists need the attributes of states — sanctuary, training grounds, money, passports, diplomatic status, et. al. And states need the attributes of terrorists — the ability to kill without leaving a return address for retaliation. A war against both acknowledges the symbiosis and the need to break it. It also suggests that victory will come when leaders find it in their self-interest not to provide the attributes of statehood to terrorists.
In Pakistan, once a safe haven for terrorists, the government decided that the risks of that support are now greater than the risks of cooperating with the US; hence the capture of Khalid Shiekh Mohammed. Pakistan is not perfect, but neither it nor Afghanistan now provides easy sanctuary for terrorists. The more states that make the decision (with or without US military intervention) the closer we are to victory.
Yasser Arafat’s PA, on the other hand, has both the attributes of a state and the plausible deniability of terrorists. And yesterday’s horrible bus bombing in Haifa reminds us that Israel has been largely engaged in a “war on terror” (preventing or punishing individual acts of terrorism) rather than a war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them (ensuring that leaders don’t support terrorists, and changing leaders if need be).
The President bears some responsibility for this state of affairs. “You are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” he said. Yet, although he bows in the direction of regime change for the Palestinians, he couples that with promises of changed Israeli behavior for something less than victory for Israel. “For its part, the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity… must end,” he said.
No. The formulation “as progress is made,” implies that the Palestinians can get by with less than is required of Saddam, or even less than is required of Pakistan. Arafat had the same opportunity to make a choice that the Taliban had about support for terrorism and that Saddam had about disarming. He made the wrong choice as they did, and the consequence should be meted out to him by Israel as it is to the others by the United States. And the President should support Israel’s war. It is the same war.