Have we redefined war, or have we forgotten what it looks like? Perhaps we should ask, is terrorism a crime, or is it an act of war?
The widely supported response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was a military invasion of Afghanistan, beginning a war that is ongoing. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was a major act of terrorism, yet there was no war, nor could there have been, because who would we have invaded — ourselves? In 1995, the act of terrorism was properly treated as a crime because there was no other way to view it. There’s no reason to think that the same standard shouldn’t have applied in 2001, regardless of the origins of the terrorists. Indeed there have been a number of major cross-border acts of terrorism in the past, and none have launched a war.
Of course there is no international police force with any teeth, so handling the crime of terrorism presents challenges that have yet to be fully addressed. But we can be sure that if an American national committed an act of terrorism in, say, Germany, US and German authorities would work closely together to bring the perpetrators to justice. If there’s a military role in combating terrorism, it should be limited to the kind of action that delivered justice to bin Laden in nations with which we have no civilized relationships.
Of course our other war, the one against Iraq, had nothing to do with an act of terrorism, which is a separate indictment of George Bush. But it’s pretty clear that he and his people were just not smart enough to respond to 9/11 in the right way.
Liberal Buzz 