Words of war

Words of war

Sept. 22, 2001

Speaking to the nation Thursday night, the president reassured citizens that the upcoming response to last week’s terrorists acts would be successful. What he did not — and could not — do was provide details about how this effort would succeed where past attempts failed, but he repeated, in many ways, that America’s resolve had been strengthened.

Bush spoke less of war than he had in the days immediately following the attacks, and when he did, he characterized the war as one between fear and freedom rather than between the United States and any person or group. The implicit message was that this will not be a familiar sort of war but a new kind.

The Marine Hymn has a line that says, "We will fight our country’s battles ...." That’s the way wars used to be fought: lines of armed men faced off against each other, generally in fields where few civilians could be endangered. Although war was never neat or kind, the rules, as they were once nearly universally understood, required it to be conducted by delegations of men who kept it as far from women and children as they could.

That has changed, and the United States had a part in changing it. We are still horrified when the killing targets civilians, and to our credit, we’re horrified when it targets civilians in other nations as well as our own. That doesn’t change the fact that in a war between a great nation and few individuals unconstrained by society’s rules, the ponderous size and the philosophical basis of the United States will be tactical disadvantages.

Afghanistan, while honoring Osama bin Laden as a guest, is disclaiming any responsibility for the actions he has promulgated, and by refusing to act against him is making it very difficult for the rest of the world to separate Afghan-hosted terrorists from Afghan civilians. That is not an Western value, and there again, our disproportionate respect for civilian lives may count against us militarily. From now on, forever, it will only take one of them to wipe out many — even all — of us, and deaths on their side will count against us rather than for us.

The military recognizes that reality, and Congress and the American people are beginning to, but many of us have yet to grasp the full implication: Not only have the ways of waging war changed, so has the very definition of victory. In many senses, this will be a conflict that cannot be won. We will never be able to declare that we have eradicated terrorism. Further, we’ll never be able to sit down with representatives of our opponents and sign a pact that says our differences have been settled.

If freedom triumphs over fear — and it will — it will be a victory of faith, not of proof. We have finally been forced to acknowledge what was true for some time: Our government cannot protect us against every threat. Some will get through. The next attack is likely to be less photogenic and even more insidious; it may be biological, chemical or even nuclear.

Whether we call this war or justice, it will take a form that’s unfamiliar now but will haunt us all before too long. The president called the fight against against terrorism "a task that does not end." We cannot escape that truth, to which we’ve spent too many years oblivious.