Breaking down national unity

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Hope you're right about official caution.  The NY Times has an 
>article today noting that the WTC/Pentagon terrorists don't fit the 
>usual profile of terrorists, "A Terrorist Profile Emerges That 
>Confounds the Experts" 
>(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/national/15SUIC.html).  It notes 
>in part:
>
>"Preliminary evidence about the suspected terrorists ... suggests 
>that they were not reckless young men facing dire economic 
>conditions and dim prospects but men as old as 41 enjoying 
>middle-class lives. Just last week, even those numbed to suicide 
>bombings in Israel were shocked by the latest incident there because 
>the perpetrator, an Israeli Arab, was 48 and a father.
>
>"Experts called it too early to say what the demographic differences 
>might mean about the shifting dynamics of international terrorism. 
>Perhaps, they said, loyalty to Osama bin Laden is even more powerful 
>than the religious and nationalist fanaticism that has been behind 
>other suicide attacks. Perhaps the size of the target attracted more 
>sophisticated candidates. Or perhaps the hatred of the United States 
>and Western culture is seeping into a broader spectrum of the 
>world's disaffected populations."
>
>If the latter claim is true, precipitate military action could 
>easily lead to Tom Friedman's eagerly sought World War III.  The 
>wiser course obviously would be to address the sources of 
>disaffection.  But attacking causes not symptoms isn't the macho, 
>feel-good option that the US wants.  We're more interested in 
>primal-scream therapy than in seeing that something like this 
>doesn't happen again.
>
>Carl

Naturally, I too hope that Max will be proven correct, and Carl & I, 
mistaken.  However, the impending war will have four important 
objectives:

1. Restore confidence in American might & invulnerability, shaken by 
the Pentagon bombing;

2. Coerce all the Arab regimes into backing America again 
unequivocally, since the coalition created by the Gulf War has been 
eroded by the horrors of economic sanctions on Iraq and the Al-Aqsa 
intifada (check out Jane Perlez, "U.S. Demands Arab Countries 'Choose 
Sides'" at 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/international/15CAPI.html>;

3. Bury, likewise, the European complaints against recent displays of 
American unilateralism;

4. Free the U.S. government to test the acceptance of "greater risk 
to American forces," including "landing special forces troops on the 
ground" (Eric Schmitt & Thom Shanker, "Administration Considers 
Broader, More Powerful Options for Potential Retaliation," NYT 13 
Sept 01), perhaps even beyond it.

These four objectives, in my opinion, argue for a serious commitment, 
undeterred by costs & difficulties (unless the costs & difficulties 
approach those of the Vietnam War).  Especially the fourth objective 
cannot find a more opportune moment for its achievement than now. 
Why not take it?

Yoshie