This is not a war

A lot of the militaristic language has happily disappeared from the White House communiqués about the World Trade Center tragedy. However, the media in general has not ceased calling the present debacle a “war.” Bush isn’t using the term any more, for which I am most grateful.

An article appearing in The New York Times last week reported that the senior George Bush had urged his son to stop using extreme militaristic language... possibly, the wisdom of age speaking.

There is no real sense in calling what is happening a war, unless you’re using the term in the same way we speak of a “war against drugs” or a “war on poverty.” To call this present action a war in the militaristic sense is to rely on World War II idioms that don’t quite fit what’s going on now. In fact, such language is counterproductive.

It would be wrong to think that we can use the methods of WWII—bombing, incineration, ground-troop invasions—in ferreting out this present enemy, when we are not even sure who they are. Such tactics would play right into the hands of the terrorists. They want us to use our power to overkill and overreact. This is the very thing they criticize in us.

It would be quite wrong to bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, like many in country want. It would also serve no purpose. The great Russian Army, before it fell into desuetude, couldn’t conquer Afghanistan using old-war tactics.

It’s understandable that many Americans feel frustrated, violated and angry, but we can’t let emotions carry us into what would be a vicious cycle of terrorism and violence. The violence that could ensue could make Northern Ireland and the Middle East look like Sunday school.

Then what are we to do?

Combine military, diplomatic and political strategies together, as we seem to be doing, with the rest of the civilized world to root out the immediate pockets of terrorism. This is what our allies in Europe are saying. We must listen to them.

But that’s not all we should do.

Let’s use this time as a nation to examine our consciences and ask why so many people hate us. We are the fat cats. We are the haves and they are the have-nots. We are powerful and we sometime abuse our power. This may oversimplify the problem, but it holds a kernel of truth.

We did a marvelous thing at the end of WWII that we can do again. We developed the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, Germany and Japan, our avowed enemies. It was enormously successful. We should begin a Marshal Plan for poorer Arab and Muslim countries—not countries that harbor terrorists, but others. We should share our wealth with them. It would throw cold water over terrorist factions and regimes and would be very good for American business. Imagine how many computers, pagers and other amenities we could sell.

We will, in all probability, face more terrorist attacks in the future. We cannot allow this to divert us from our aim: justice for all nations and all humankind.

Tom Kane, Staff Writer