President Bush Thursday night asked the American people for patience as the United States and dozens of allied governments mobilize for what promises to be a long, costly and often obscure war against terrorism. The president's inspirational words lifted a grieving nation's spirits. He promised that we would rebuild New York City and consign the terrorists who disfigured it to "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." But his cautions were appropriate, too. The effort can succeed, but people should understand that it is unlikely to produce the quick, vivid and decisive victories associated with many conventional wars of the past. Like the "war against crime," the "war against terrorism" will be never-ending.

So the public should be patient. At the same time, the public should expect patience, as well as precision, from Washington. To succeed, the new war on terrorism will rely on diplomatic and economic strength more than conventional militarily power. Impatience, or the indiscriminate use of military force, could damage those long-term diplomatic and economic goals.

The president set the right tone in his address. We will rule out no military option for tracking down the perpetrators of the most horrific act of terrorism in U.S. history. But the president and Secretary of State Colin Powell also will work more broadly to build a coalition of civilized nations, including many in the Islamic world, that can choke off the terrorist groups' economic assets and strip them of their political cover.

That flexibility of options will be vital. The masterminds of last week's coordinated acts of terror do not wage conventional war and do not present conventional military targets. "What's the sense of sending $2-million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?" the president asked senators during a White House meeting earlier this week. President Bush and most of his top advisers seem to understand the problem -- and the need to move beyond conventional thinking. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested Thursday that the war on terrorism may require us to "fashion a new vocabulary" to define the nature of the conflict and the measures of success. Creating a Cabinet-level office to coordinate homeland defenses is an important start in redefining our security.

Even if it were militarily feasible, destroying the ragtag camps of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups wouldn't make the civilized world much safer. But choking off those groups' economic assets would. So would isolating those groups from the governments that have given them active or tacit help. Those efforts will require worldwide cooperation. Our traditional allies in Europe are reliably on board, but it may be even more crucial to maintain the support of a broader coalition of governments, particularly those in the Islamic world.

Thursday night, President Bush was speaking to the people and governments of the Islamic world as much as to Americans. Governments such as Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia are generally supportive of the United States' antiterrorism efforts; in many respects, they have even more to fear from terrorists and their sympathizers than we do. However, those and other governments also must fend with large segments of their populations that are, at best, suspicious of Washington's motives. President Bush's comments focused on Afghanistan's perverse Taliban regime, which has few friends even in the Islamic world, but some other Washington officials and interest groups are pressing for more indiscriminate military action that could fracture the coalition the president hopes to build.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the most prominent administration official lobbying for military campaigns in Iraq and Lebanon. A group of conservative ideologues has issued a letter calling for making "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power" even if he is not shown to be linked to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Some commentators are making truly irresponsible calls to arms. Ann Coulter, a National Review columnist and television pundit, had this suggestion: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Secretary of State Powell, who knows something about putting together effective military coalitions, worries that such bluster will sabotage Washington's efforts to build international support for military action targeted against the terrorists who attacked America. Powell and the president have to take the lead in assuring people, at home and in pivotal nations around the globe, that the war against terrorism will not be distorted into a war against Islam, or be used as a pretext to attack governments Washington doesn't like, whether or not they are guilty of involvement in terrorist activity.

People from about 80 countries in addition to the United States were killed in the attack on America. The civilized world will be on our side if we work toward a unified war against terrorism, rather than a unilateral effort to settle old scores. President Bush set the right priorities Thursday night. The rest of his administration, along with the members of Congress who were listening, should follow his lead.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page