The value of debate in the war on terrorism

Bipartisanship in Washington is refreshing and necessary — but bipartisanship should not put an end to critical debate. The current crisis demands creative thinking, and nothing spurs creative solutions so well as argument.

Surely, there are more ways than one to fight terrorism. And congressional resolve to support the President should not preclude public and critical analysis of "the war on terrorism."

After all, it's possible that armed warfare is not the most effective response to the Tuesday attacks. It's possible that a package of different policies — some military, some economic, some political — would be the best solution. But as long as bipartisanship means supporting the President at the expense of criticism, we'll never know.

Indeed, the absence of critical debate seems a national phenomenon. American flags are everywhere — and that makes me proud. Americans — including this one — want America to stand down her enemies around the world. But why are we so reluctant to question "the war on terrorism?"

Part of the reason is the stubborn influence of Vietnam on the American psyche. Vietnam reminds all Americans that war without a clear and justified mission can create terrible national division. And Americans are worried they'll recreate the same divisions if they question the new war now.

But this is not Vietnam. Unlike Vietnam, this war does have a moral purpose: fighting terrorism around the world. Unlike World War II, however, our anger does not so neatly translate into a military course of action.

We should not fear that critical discussion about the "war on terrorism" would recreate the brutal divisions of the 1960s. The reason: Debate will not center on whether the cause is worth fighting but how best to fight it.

And this is not World War II, either — that's one reason comparisons between Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 are dangerous. We should not be so eager to recreate the patriotism of the 1940s that we misunderstand the demands of patriotism in the year 2001. What patriotism in 2001 demands as much as anything else — as much as flag-waving and freedom loving — is the ability to criticize freely and openly.

Debate — even disagreement — is not a sign of weakness. But lack of debate will weaken whatever course of action our leaders pursue. We — the people — have a role to play in this time of national urgency. Debate is not only the responsibility of our leaders. It is the responsibility of all Americans.

Debate in Washington and around the country is not absent — but it is circumscribed to a debilitating degree. The parameters seem to run something like this: Debate is allowed so long as the product is compatible with the President's "war on terrorism," which is itself quite unclear.

As Americans, we want to rally around the flag and behind our President. And we should. But even patriotism is compatible with critical debate.

There's a lot of talk about not letting the terrorists destroy American institutions and American values. But we must be careful to ensure that the fundamental value of any democracy — free and open criticism — is not put aside in pursuit of freedom. Adam Frankel is a Wilson School major from New York, NY. He can be reached at afrankel@princeton.edu.