Must we get back to business as usual?

It's been three months since Sept. 11, and things seem nearly back to normal. The nation has largely stopped following the war in Afghanistan — the Taliban have obligingly conceded to American bombing and the ground assault of the northern alliance; Osama bin Laden has been driven deeper into his cave network, apparently surrounded by U.S. special forces; and the Justice Department has issued the first indictment for the September attacks. At a superficial glance, the United States is back on top — the military has displayed its prowess, the terrorists are supposedly on the run and we're being offered the chance to be witnesses at yet another execution overseen by George W. Bush. As if to confirm that it's business as usual, news leaked out this week that the Bush administration is to renounce the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, a key pillar of Cold War disarmament, in spite of the protests of virtually every other country in the world. Although America was stunned by the September attacks, it's only taken 90 days to restore the old order of American foreign policy: The public is largely disengaged from events, and the government pursues policies which alienate potential allies and confirm America's detachment from the international community.

There's a paradox at the heart of U.S. foreign policy: While this country is perhaps the most engaged and active player on the international stage, the American people are extremely disengaged from U.S. policies and are often unaware of their effects. In the late 1990s, as American planes pummeled Serbia, Kosovo and Iraq, it seemed particularly surreal to observe the absolute calm, the utter ordinariness that prevailed in the United States. There was little discussion of the propriety of American action in the former Yugoslavia or of the wisdom of the continuing sanctions policy in Iraq; and yet the U.S. presence in these countries exercised a profound influence over the lives of millions — or, in the case of Iraq, led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. How could America remain insulated from the effects of these policies? It didn't help that the Clinton administration actively undermined institutions and conventions that might foster a greater degree of international cooperation. From the treaty on landmines (which the United States refused to sign) through the proposed International Criminal Court (which the United States rejected) to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (which both Clinton and Bush effectively vetoed), the United States refused to allow its actions to be constrained by international standards and agreements.

After Sept. 11, it seemed impossible that this destructive trend — what the policy wonks might call "isolationist unilateralism" — could continue. The American public was no longer safe from the consequences of American foreign policy; the veneer of American invulnerability had been shattered; and it was obvious that America would be dependent on a broad alliance of foreign nations — including many nations in the Middle East — to avert future attacks. In subsequent weeks, however, Americans have fallen for a series of confidence tricks offered up by the Bush administration: The easy victory over the Taliban, for example, has only strengthened the disastrously mistaken assumption that the United States is currently embroiled in a traditional war rather than a much more diffuse conflict against many alienated and desperate enemies. As we await the news that Mullah Omar has been captured and sent to a secret military tribunal or that bin Laden has finally had his beard plucked by Green Berets, we overlook the ongoing miseries of Palestinians, Iraqis, Egyptians and others. Business as usual, until the next attack on the United States — perhaps an even more awful assault than that of Sept. 11 — forces us to realize that this problem is much bigger than the war in Afghanistan, and that it doesn't come with an easy military solution.

What can we do to avert this? For one thing, we can keep the spotlight on the Middle East and continue to debate American policies towards Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other countries. We can inform ourselves of the recent history of the region and particularly of the disturbing relationship between political repression (especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia) and the rise of militant Islam. More generally, we should hold the Bush administration accountable for its ongoing contempt of multilateral initiatives and international law — why not call Congress to protest the proposed withdrawal from the ABM treaty, or the craven U.S. refusal to take part in the upcoming peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan or the continuing failure of the United States to put pressure on Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? Amidst all the current uncertainties, we can be sure of this: A return to the American foreign policies that prevailed before Sept. 11 is the worst protection against a repeat of that awful day. Nicholas Guyatt, a graduate student in the history department, is from Bristol, England. He can be reached at nsguyatt@princeton.edu.