|
In
my lifetime we have fought four major wars. World War II mobilized
the entire country and was understood by Americans to be fought
for reasons of principle, values, and liberty. The Korean War
was seen as a strategic necessity—to stop aggression—but did
not command the wide public support nor the moral vision of
its predecessor. The war in Vietnam seemed ill-conceived, badly
fought, and weakly justified by our political leadership. Rather
than bring our people together, as most wars do, it rent society
in ways that persist to this day. The war in the Persian Gulf
was hardly a war at all, given its relative brevity and the
ease with which American and allied forces achieved their stated
goals. Its main consequence was to stimulate a debate over whether
the United States had gone far enough, and to leave troops on
the ground in a highly volatile area of the world.
Now we are again speaking in terms of war.
Waging war against terrorism, in the sense of mobilizing our
people, our institutions, our military forces, and our allies,
seems both justified and necessary for reasons of justice and
deterrence: justice, because more than 3,500 innocent people
have been murdered; and deterrence, because the American people
insist at a minimum that our government make every effort to
prevent a reoccurrence of the terror.
But if this is war, it is unlike any of
the four major wars of the past half-century. The enemy is not
a state or group of states. It’s a dispersed multinational network,
having its roots in Afghanistan and its branches in dozens of
countries, rich and poor, all over the world. The cells of this
network are cloaked in darkness, often hiding in and feeding
on legitimate, peaceful communities of the Muslim faith and
connecting with each other through modern technology when terrorist
transactions are being planned or at work. The enemy’s agenda
is murky and malevolent. While nominally focused on the Middle
East and the Persian Gulf, its rage seems more directed against
globalization, modernization, Western values, and the American
presence in the world. Its goal is to terrorize and bring down
those societies it identifies as evil and to replace existing
governments with its own perverse and perverted concept of “religious”
rule. Clearly no truce, peace settlement, or war-ending compromise
is possible with such an adversary. No redirection of U.S. policy
would bring about a lessening of terrorist fervor or targeting
of our interests. Therefore our actions must be centered on
breaking up and defeating the network and the states that support
it.
|
How are we to accomplish this? How do we wage
war when our strengths—massive, mobile armed forces, waves of
aircraft and missiles, armadas of ships, all supported by the
latest in technology—may not be entirely effective against such
an elusive enemy? How do we measure victory or even the success
of our efforts?
To answer these questions, I suggest we
see this war in terms of five interconnected battlefronts: diplomatic/political,
economic/financial, law enforcement, intelligence, and military.
Diplomatic action is focused on bringing together a broad coalition
of nations for coordinated joint action. This will support the
work on other fronts by maximizing our ability to find and destroy
terrorist cells and minimizing the possibility that any nation
will harbor or support them. A strong, viable coalition with
staying power will bolster the efforts on the economic front
to freeze terrorist money, prevent it from being laundered and
used, and isolate and sanction those countries that do not cooperate
with the coalition to the fullest extent of their capabilities.
Such a coalition will also promote more effective cooperation
among intelligence and law enforcement services in the production
and sharing of operational, real-time information and intelligence—the
key to success in knowing our enemy and his plans. The employment
of actionable intelligence in law enforcement investigations,
leading to arrests, convictions, and punishment of terrorist
felons, can deal a strong blow to their ability to operate.
|
The Role of Law
Law is meant for times like these. Legal institutions
can provide collective comfort that our fundamental societal
principles remain intact. The U.S. Constitution also ensures
that the zeal of our elected leaders to increase our security
by restricting our freedoms will be tempered. Still, one
price we pay for a relatively open society is that the
threat of terrorism can never be eliminated. Looking ahead,
law can help address the root causes of terrorism. Terrorism
does not occur in a vacuum. Using the international legal
system to resolve conflicts and to forge agreements for
economic development and education may do more for our
national security than any homeland defense.
—William
C. Banks, Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor,
College of Law;
professor of public administration, Maxwell School and
College of Arts and Sciences
|
|