A tentative step

While it seems strange to talk of peace when our country has just yesterday commenced air strikes in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, it seems almost stranger to speak of war. Certainly, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network are, if the allegations prove correct, enemies to this country. But can a country go to war against a group that is not a nation? The doves think that the United States can come up with a diplomatic solution, while the hawks seek a military one. But all this presupposes that there is someone to negotiate with or go to war against, and, while it is quite possible that either military force or diplomatic negotiation could force the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, it is unclear how effective either type of action will be in stamping out al-Qaida in particular or terrorism in general.

Bin Laden, though he has his followers, can in no way be compared to the head of a traditional nation-state. Thus the traditional diplomatic and military functions of our country, developed through two hundred years of foreign policy, can only deal with al-Qaida in a clumsy way. Anyone who claims to have a cut-and-dry anti-terrorist solution is either a fool or a god, and the closest thing the United States has to a precedent in this matter is Israel and the preemptive attacks it took against alleged terrorist leaders this summer. Though as of now it is unclear how effective these attacks were, few would call their results impressive.

Yesterday's attack on Afghanistan, thus, cannot possibly be thought to have the exactness and precision of the surgeon's knife. But as of yesterday it seemed to be a necessary and effective first step in bringing bin Laden to justice and, in turn, his terrorist organization to dissolution.

On the other hand, given the unusual state of the world outlined above, the consequences of this action are dangerously uncertain. Every effort should be made to encourage courteous, contemplative and constructive debate as events unfold in the coming weeks and months. Future actions — either military or diplomatic — should be carefully considered among a thoughtful electorate.

On that note, we applaud the efforts of the United States and Britain, who have attempted to control the damage that the attacks will cause to the innocents of Afghanistan by dropping humanitarian aid packages almost immediately after the air strikes. It is clear that, having spent almost a month in deliberation and seeking diplomatic solutions, the leaders of our nation have understood the validity of both sides of this debate and have done their best to balance the interests of the people of Afghanistan with ending the terror.

This is a difficult time. Terrorism on this scale poses riddles that are difficult for the most subtle minds and threats that frighten the purest hearts. If the United States is to prevail, we must stand together as a people, not in the ignorant mob of unified public opinion, but in considerate debate and mutual support in the emotional trial we now face. We would do best to follow the injunction of the Duke of Albany at the close of King Lear, when he says, "The weight of this sad time we must obey; / Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." Only by discussing what we feel, and tempering it with thought, will we find a policy that can bring diplomacy and military action together in a combination with which we can live.