It is very difficult for me to write about the recent events in New York City and Washington, D.C. I feel no matter what words I write or feelings I express, I am not doing justice to the significance of the darkest day in United States history nor the memory of the thousands who tragically lost their lives. I hope many of you were as touched as I by the heroic bravery of emergency personnel and the outpouring of generosity and patriotism by our fellow citizens in the aftermath of last Tuesday's attacks.
So far, I would assert that President George W. Bush has done an admirable job in handling this national crisis. From a heartfelt Oval Office address the night of the attack to an impassioned rally at the rubble of the World Trade Center, he has balanced the necessary emotions of grief for the victims with outrage at the aggressors. He has reportedly had numerous conversations with world leaders as he tries to build an international coalition, and his public statements have been firm, as he and Secretary of State Colin Powell have talked of "ending" states that are involved in terrorism.
Unfortunately, as the United States decides how to respond militarily, there are no easy choices for Bush, politically, strategically or morally.
The problem arises with the impossibility of achieving proportionality for these grievous acts. For example, latest published estimates figure a terrorist ring of approximately 50 people was involved in the attack. Even if the United States brings each and every one of them to justice, that tally is less than 1 percent of the people who lost their lives Sept. 11, 2001. Even if the United States--in a tremendous show of force--completely decimates the country of Afghanistan, its Gross National Product of $21 billion is paltry in comparison to the assets the United States has at its disposal.
The American people want revenge for the terror inflicted Sept. 11. They want images on the nightly news that show America "getting even." Unfortunately, there just aren't that many targets to hit.
Political pundits have stressed the importance of Bush's forming and maintaining a world coalition of states--including Arab countries--to fight the war on terrorism. Predictably, most states have signed on in the immediate aftermath of the attack--failure to do so would risk a massive United States attack. But as time goes on, states will inevitably waiver in their commitment just as the target itself will waiver in and out of view.
When Bush's father assembled the last great world coalition, the enemy and objectives were clear. In this new war, there is clear motive, but the enemy is unknown and changing. As the United States attempts to define what harboring terrorism entails, other nations may disagree on the appropriateness of military action.
Even after the United States decides what it wants to attack, it must determine by what means. All options have significant drawbacks:
The United States could start a bombing campaign, or even start using tactical nuclear weapons. However, these assaults would need a launching platform, which means Pakistani or Russian cooperation. Moreover, these operations would inflict massive civilian casualties and are not guaranteed to hit their intended target. The images of destruction in the Third World may weaken the resolve of coalition members.
The United States could insert special forces to attack Osama bin Laden from the ground. This would minimize civilian casualties but would increase risk to American forces. Memories have not faded of botched special forces missions in Iran during the hostage crisis.
The United States could use its conventional army to attack nations such as Iran and Afghanistan. However, the mountainous terrain would encumber our armored divisions. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan at the height of its military power in 1980, yet they could not eradicate the enemy. If threatened, the enemy could literally head for the hills, where finding them would be very difficult.
Finally, the United States could choose to not use its military but use the most severe economic and diplomatic sanctions at its disposal. However, this is probably an impossibility, as it would look as if the president surrendered in the war on terrorism.
In this darkest of hours in American history, citizens are coming together to show tremendous support for our leaders and our nation. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the problem of terrorism, and, as the president has stated, the nation will have to show patience as it plans out the optimal course of action. There is no way the U.S. government can bring back the countless mothers, fathers, spouses and children that died last week. But we must prepare ourselves to swallow some tough decisions as our government takes the necessary steps to ensure that nothing of this magnitude ever happens to America again.
Norm Bradley, Pratt '01, is a former editorial page editor of The Chronicle and Duke Student Government head line monitor.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.