I M P R E S S I O N S

War of Words

by Steven C. Day

As I write this, smoke is drifting across city skies and Americans are hurting, bleeding and dying. For so many, the nightmare is only beginning — and it may never really end.

Here in Kansas, far from the carnage, most of us are bolted in front of television screens, watching the same grisly images played again and again. The range of our emotions is about what would be expected: a lot of anger, a lot of sadness and maybe a little fear. Overriding everything is a general sense of disbelief. This can’t be happening; not here, not in America.

Given the sophistication of the attacks and the degree of the damage done, it is easy to see why so many people, including the president, are calling this an act of war against the United States. Even the frequent comparisons to the attack on Pearl Harbor have the ring of truth. But is all this bellicose language really wise? Should we really be using the words of warfare, the most potent words in any language, in such an unrestrained way?

It would be different if this war talk were just directed against the criminals involved in the attacks and those supporting them. No one doubts the need for strong action there, so long as the response is measured and reasonable steps are taken to limit civilian casualties. But the current talk of war goes far beyond that.

In fact, the president, with apparent bipartisan congressional support, has said that the U.S. is declaring a war not just against these terrorists, but against all terrorists everywhere. If that’s true, then we are looking at one hell of an undertaking. This remains a huge and complex world. Acts of terrorism occur daily and in virtually every nook and cranny of the globe, with each situation carrying its own unique history, its own complexities and its own set of traps for unwary outsiders.

What are the rules of engagement for this new global war against terrorism? What are our strategic goals? Most important, what is our exit strategy? How long will we remain on a wartime footing? Will a year be long enough? Or will we need five, 10 or even 20 years? Terrorism is immortal. Will this then be a war in perpetuity?

These are the kinds of questions experts say should always be answered before starting any war. Surely they are all the more important in this situation, where the enemy is made up of vague and shadowy organizations, that are constantly being reinvented.

A war against such groups will offer no clear or decisive victory. Even in the unlikely event that we succeed in wiping out the entire membership of every group that was directly or indirectly involved in the New York and Washington attacks, terrorism against the United States will continue and probably increase as the terrorists seek to match us strike for strike.

History offers a grim forecast of the damage such a long and frustrating state of war would do to our culture. The necessities of war inevitably drive free societies to become less open, less tolerant and ultimately less free. During World War I, for example, the U.S. government systematically suppressed domestic political dissent, imprisoning antiwar activists. In World War II, the passions of war led to the internment of thousands of Japanese Americans. More recently, Arab Americans were subjected to discrimination and even physical assaults during the Gulf War. Similar incidents have already been reported following the recent terrorist attacks.

Here at the very outset of this new “war” already there is talk of enhancing the FBI’s power to snoop on American citizens. Politicians and commentators warn us that we will now have to accept less freedom, in the interests of security. Is this really where we want to go — what we want to become?

We all hurt so badly right now, and our fury is so fresh, that it’s hard to think long term. Certainly our political leadership and the opinion leaders of the media have been of no help on this. They seem more than satisfied to merely repeat the same saber-rattling cliches.

But we need to be smart. We need to think about consequences. The United States will be battling terrorists for as long as we remain a great nation. The question is whether we will conduct this fight on our terms, or on theirs. Will we remain the America we love, or will we let the words and passions of war turn us into something uglier? The battle ahead isn’t just about punishing terrorists, it’s also about what sort of soul our country will carry into this new century.

Enter the Pop Forum
Should the United States prepare for war?

Related Sites
Here’s the text of the Senate resolution authorizing the use of force.
"Having donated more blood than victims needed, having wallpapered their towns with flags, and with little choice but to stew over television reruns of terror in their homeland, more than a few Americans are beginning to obsess about how to get even." So begins Blaine Harden’s piece in The New York Times on the transition from sorrow to anger.
"Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington, it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don’t get it," Seumas Milne writes in The Guardian (UK). The article goes on to explain how U.S. foreign policy has angered many around the globe.
Slate has archived a collection of editorial cartoons pertaining to the terrorist attack. The Guardian points out that "[t]he nationalism of the symbols chosen - liberty, Uncle Sam, an eagle, the stars and stripes - illustrates how far the attack has penetrated the American psyche."