Not that the Administration is listening to its critics. What’s guiding its reaction is reality. Even if the Bush Administration is correct that bin Laden and his terrorist network are the perpetrators of this crime (and evidence indicates that they are), they do not know where he and his cohorts are hiding. A "terrorist camp" does not have a mess hall, bunks, and a sign saying, "Welcome to Camp Terrorism." A terrorist camp can be a mountain cave or an urban tenement (not to mention a condo in South Florida), each of which presents problems that massive military power cannot solve. The Israelis have been destroying terrorist camps since the early 1980s when Ariel Sharon invaded Southern Lebanon. Those attacks have been militarily successful in killing terrorists but politically futile in ending terrorism.

The Administration is right in its emphasis on diplomacy, but even that is fraught with danger. We need the cooperation of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example. But the Saudi government is a corrupt monarchy and Pakistan is a military dictatorship in a country with a large fundamentalist population, including many Afghan refugees. The American military presence in Saudi Arabia is, according to bin Laden, a primary provocation for his terrorist attacks. Virtually anything the U.S. does in these (and other) countries risks destabilizing their societies and inciting more anti-Americanism.

Christopher Hitchens, a left-wing writer who has been a long-time critic of Israel’s expansionist policies in the West Bank and who was an ardent supporter of U.S. and NATO military aid to the Muslim population in Bosnia and Kosho has reviewed (in The Guardian, 9/21/01) the ideology and actions of bin Laden and has concluded, correctly I think, that he represents "fascism with a Muslim face." Fascism is an ideology of violence and hatred. It needs to be confronted wherever it appears. The question is how.

Michael Klare , a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a prescient critic of American military and foreign policy going back to the Vietnam Era, has suggested (www.salon.com/news/terrorism for 9/13) as an alternative to massive military action "a strategy that combines global law enforcement collaboration plus moral and religious combat." Instead of giving credibility to bin Ladder's call for a "holy war," Klare would treat the perpetrators as criminals and use international law enforcement agencies from around the world to track them down.

Reality is the great constraint staring the Bush Administration in the face. Every move they make, military or diplomatic, is fraught with unintended consequences that can easily lead to a major conflagration. This is no time for reckless rhetoric or a "quick-fix" military solution.

Armed force, as even Klare acknowledges, cannot be ruled out. When murderers resist arrest, force often must be used to bring them to justice. But first the evidence needs to be convincing, and an indictment made. We won’t stop terrorism – we’ll only incite it -- by going after the wrong people. Terrorism -- the ability of a small group of secretive fanatics to rain death and destruction anywhere -- is a threat to all people and all nations. The greater the international presence the more effective the attack on terrorism will be.

Once evidence is presented, a commando raid aimed at the terrorist networks is, I believe, legitimate. But given the ability of terrorists to hide or mix with the public, success will not be easy. What I fear most is a botched raid, one perceived by us as a "humiliation." This would lead to a cry for greater force, and propel us down the slippery-slope of military escalation.

I write this as one who has protested every unilateral American military action since the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam disaster: It’s necessary that the military have enough lethal force to get its job done, as long as the job be well-defined; that is, aimed at the guilty parties. This is not the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam, a case of the United States trying to dominate other peoples’ countries. The terrorists do not stand for peace, justice, self-determination, or human dignity.

A military attack, no matter how successful, may stop the bin Laden network, but it won’t end the threat of terrorism. Reality dictates that the Bush Administration act with prudence. Anything less creates the conditions for disaster. Political leaders are often blinded by ideology, nationalism and short-term political self-interest (i.e., public opinion ratings); they have a history of ignoring reality.

The public needs to keep itself focused and give the Administration guidance so it does not get sidetracked by the jingoistic demagoguery of warhawks screaming for vengeance. We must go to the international community for support, treat the perpetrators as criminals, not holy warriors, and use necessary force if, as a last resort, that is what’s needed to bring them to justice. Then, and of even greater consequence, we need to reexamine our political, social and economic priorities. Fanaticism breeds in a world of poverty, intolerance, economic exploitation, and political injustice. Terrorists know how to exploit legitimate grievances. If military force needs to be used, it has to be accompanied by humanitarian aid and a serious reexamination of our own foreign policy and materialist values. The United States contributes to global injustice. We help create the conditions that breed terrorism.

Marty Jezer's books include The Dark Ages: Life in the USA 1945-1960. He writes from Brattleboro, Vermont and welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net.

###