|
To believe that it is possible to apply sufficient conventional military force to deter every disaffected state from aiding terrorism, or that the American public can abide the application of force at the level necessary to practically eliminate terrorist capabilities, requires one to turn a blind eye to history and principle. When a war footing is adopted it should be understood that escalation is likely and that policies begin to conform to a philosophy of annihilation as a means to achieve national security.
The administration's war rhetoric has already created panic and displacement in remote corners of the world, and hardened the resolve of potential adversaries to resist and retaliate against "U.S.-sponsored terrorism." Here at home, the slow and deliberate implementation of this invented war, combined with daily doses of authoritative speculation about possible targets and military options provided by an enthusiastic press, has insidiously contributed to the American public's seeming acceptance of it.
It has promoted a false sense of control over our destiny, an almost unquestioned preparedness to accept the suspension of civil liberties and a belief that the righteousness of our purpose justifies the achievement of our stated objectives at any cost. We need look no further than near unanimous and unnecessary congressional acquiescence to the president of discretion to any means of force to identify an emerging and potentially irresponsible "us against them" brand of patriotism.
Does the United States have the right to draw the world into further conflict? Do Americans really want war?
It is the improvement of internal security and foreign intelligence that will eventually rejuvenate America's sense of well-being. The adoption of covert tactics that strike directly at perpetrators of terrorist acts can satisfy the public's demand for justice and may also increase security. However, the protracted use of highly visible military force against loosely defined enemies will achieve neither objective. Instead, it will drag the public psyche through a roller coaster ride of pyrrhic victories and dispiriting defeats while more innocent lives are lost.
Perhaps the most egregious injury inflicted by the prosecution of the Bush administration's war is that it diverts resources and the seemingly universal and boundless desire of civilized people to end horrific violence from efforts that can bring about real change. Such efforts include the building of international consensus on what behaviors will be tolerated, the formulation of effective mechanisms to redress international grievances and the improvement of economic conditions in regional flashpoints.
What is required now is the funneling of the emotions and determination of the international community into giving principles already recorded in the charters and constitutions of states and international institutions practical meaning and substance.
Vision and the courage to accept change are necessary to break the cycle of violence. This is the drumbeat that we have smugly sounded from a position of relative safety to other states during times of crises. Is the wisdom of this counsel invalidated by the fact that Americans are now the victims of the violence?
Regardless of the damage inflicted to this country on Sept. 11, our survival and way of life are not at immediate risk. We have a legacy of functioning under principles of coexistence which we can offer to the dialogue among nations: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Most important, we are the focal point of a universal commiseration over the enormities carried out in New York City and Washington. The combination of relative security, moral principle, sympathy and economic wherewithal uniquely positions the United States to lead the way to change.
The Bush administration has already begun to bypass international agreement in the conduct of its war of retribution in favor of bilateral arrangements with states willing to negotiate their own deals. An international consensus fueled by horror and rage appears, for now, to have formed behind our unilateral declarations of war. This consensus is ephemeral, and with each exercise of force undertaken new battle lines will be drawn, new justifications for violence will emerge and new combatants will appear.
What is worse, the value of the currency we now possess for effecting nonviolent change in the world, which was acquired through the sacrifice of thousand of lives, will erode with every innocent life that perishes at our hands.
Recognition that some international cooperation is required to execute a war on terrorism is perhaps this administration policy's only saving grace. It is possible that we may stumble fortuitously into an international consensus on fundamental principles that are the forerunner to practical solutions to real problems. But why leave the achievement of this fundamental goal to chance?
Jeffery Abarbanell is a professor at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at UNC-Chapel Hill and a faculty fellow of the William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan
© Copyright 2001, The News & Observer
###
| 
