Al-Qaeda and the Problem of What’s Right
When I consider the imminent war, I have to keep in mind that the rhetoric of the Right is not just rhetoric. There is valid content in what these people are saying. Iraq will cozy up with terrorists; it’s been doing so. It will do it more and more as the threat level increases, and we can fully expect the terrorists to act according to their own plans and timing, which may or may not coincide with what happens in Iraq. If we go to war – when – Iraq will not be Saddam Hussein anymore. But that won’t change what the terrorists do, just who they work with to get their ends met. So Iraq is a threat to world peace. That must change, and the war is likely to remove at least Iraq as a threat. But other threats remain, so the question remains, too: what do we do about the terrorists? Because that’s the question we started with. So long as the activities in the Middle East were largely confined there, we were pretty happy to let them continue to kill each other. Back when the PLO were hijacking every plane they could find, pushing old men in wheelchairs off the deck of cruise liners, and shooting Olympic Athletes or travellers in Rome, the world took a great deal of interest in putting a stop to these activities. It worked, too. So now we have to do the same with a new group of players, but the old group of supporters still exist. What do we do when Iraq is out of the picture as a state sponsor of terrorists and Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia and all the other regional governments that have spent decades paying off, training, and concealing terrorists are still out there, handing over money and guns and whole towns, just so the terrorists will act outside the region? Is war, over and over, the only answer? Do we just turn to the next country and say “You’re next”? Bush seems all too ready to go that way, and I’m not easy in my mind that it won’t be the next step. I certainly don’t expect the Syrians to just stop. Southern Lebanon is owned by Hamas and Hezbollah. The Saudi royals aren’t going to quit their country so long as a drop of oil remains under the desert. I am resigned to the war, and I believe it will remove a terrible dictator from power and one of the great dangers to the world, but I don’t have to support it, not when I believe that more needs to be done to address the fundamental issues: what is America’s place in the world, and what are its responsibilities toward the Middle East? Where are the terrorists, and how can we be sure they’re neutralized? I won’t claim any answers; I’m smart enough to know I’m not smart enough. I think, nevertheless, we need to be in Syria and Jordan and Egypt and even Iran and Libya, et al., right now working diplomatically, trying to help these nations remove the threats they created, with no small help from America (and Asia and Europe; there’s plenty of blame to go around, if you’re honest). Yes, the US shares the blame for how it’s acted in the past with these countries, so it needs to work toward a position where it can share the credit for doing what’s right, now. Going to war is bound to accrue more blame, no matter how much good it does.