Most Americans have never lived through a time like this. Who of us could have imagined our current state of anxiety and outrage a mere two months ago? Seven weeks after a terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland that killed more than five thousand civilians, the nation is poised between war and a disorienting sense of stasis. For most, life continues much as it was before September 11, at least outwardly. At the same time, National Guardsmen patrol the nation’s airports and U.S. and British aircraft are conducting daily bombing raids against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden’s training bases. As we write, President George W. Bush has alerted the nation to intelligence reports that warn of the heightened possibility of another attack. On television, Osama bin Laden and his associates threaten more murder, urging Muslims to stay out of planes and skyscrapers. Across the country, a species of biological warfare is being conducting through the mail, resulting in one death and widespread fear. Is the anthrax scare merely a copycat crime, or is bioterrorism the next step in some larger coordinated offensive?
There is little sense of where this crisis is likely to go, although there is a growing recognition that the threat will not end soon. Perhaps not since the Cuban missile crisis have Americans been forced to contemplate the unthinkable in such a direct and personal way. It is not just the fear of another airplane hijacking or random poisoning, but the possibility that events will spiral out of control-in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, or elsewhere-resulting in a wider war and even nuclear confrontation. Some have suggested that the effort needed to defeat the terrorists is analogous to the cold war, a decades-long battle of nerves that will test both our determination and our flexibility. That is almost a welcome prospect in light of other possible outcomes. Still, it would be well to remember that, despite the justice of the cause, the United States made plenty of mistakes during the cold war (see "Death and Lies in El Salvador," page 12), and it will take a sure sense of moral limits if we are not to betray our own values in resisting a dangerous and unquestionably evil enemy. Are the authoritarian and corrupt allies we have today in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere worth the price we will pay in alienating the democratic aspirations of their people? Can an alternative to Saudi corruption be created that doesn’t lead to theocratic fanaticism?
Facing such difficult choices, the nation has been reassured by the manner in which Bush and his administration have responded. After some initial stumbles, the president has appeared steady as well as alert to the complexity of the situation. He has begun to prepare the American people for possible sacrifice, although there are questions about how fairly that sacrifice will be shared. Bailing out airline companies that are simultaneously laying off tens of thousands of workers isn’t an encouraging sign. On the other hand, the administration has shrewdly assembled an international coalition, including most of the Arab states, to support U.S. actions. Similarly, Bush has resisted the urgings of some to widen the war against terrorism to Iraq. He has been painstaking in differentiating between the terrorists and Islamic society as a whole, emphasizing that this is not the religious war bin Laden so desperately desires. Initial military operations appear to have been as scrupulous as possible about minimizing civilian casualties, and have been coupled with a massive effort to get food to the hundreds of thousands of refugees now fleeing Afghanistan. Serious questions remain, however. How stable is Pakistan’s military regime? How secure are its nuclear weapons? Can the United States and its allies win the propaganda war for Muslims around the world?
Few have missed the irony of how Bush, who scoffed at the idea of international initiatives during the first months of his presidency, has embraced the necessity and efficacy of multilateral coalitions and action. Engagement with the world-even a measure of "nation building"-is now on the administration’s agenda. Nor is it difficult to miss the irony of how this staunchly conservative Republican is defending the federal government’s role in a myriad of tasks, from airplane safety to economic stimulus to public health. As anyone who was in New York during the attacks knows, we are all dependent on government in countless ways, and the senseless denigration of government’s legitimate role is a hobby for idlers, not serious citizens or presidents.
In that context, the reemergence of partisan differences in Washington is welcomed. Democrats in Congress have rightly shown deference to the administration’s initiatives in the last few weeks. But if politics as usual has ceased, politics should not. Democrats have a responsibility to raise concerns about safeguards for civil liberties in antiterrorism legislation and the details of the economic stimulus package. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should resort to the canard that political opposition aids the enemy.
A similar sense of responsibility should make itself felt in the intellectual community. While not condoning the attacks, some, predominantly on the left, have sought to explain the terrorists’ motives as reactions to the turpitude of American foreign policy, or the oppression of the world’s poor, or as no different from the military actions of the United States. What goes around, some say, comes around. Liberals especially should be loud and clear in rejecting such "explanations." In targeting unarmed civilians, terrorism forfeits any right to a hearing about supposed grievances. "The only political response to ideological fanatics and suicidal holy warriors," writes political philosopher Michael Walzer, "is implacable opposition."
Of course, the strength of that opposition will continue to depend on the justice of our own actions.
