David Corn: Calling for a Wider, but Smarter War

The Bush Administration can offer BDAs (for non-cable-news addicts, that’s bomb damage assessments) showing destroyed terrorist camps, pulverized Taliban infrastructure. It can note the number of Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders “neutralized.” But, most probably, the true effectiveness of this assault will not be readily determinable, since the target is a murderous band that only mounts attacks every few years. (So far, that is.) All may appear well with President Bush’s war on terrorism — assuming it doesn’t spark unrest in the region and the outbreak of other wars — until the Sears Tower is leveled in 2003 or a human-bomb takes an orchestra seat at the 1000th performance of “The Producers” or New Orleans is nuked during the next presidential campaign.

With that in mind, it is best to wish for and to urge a limited military action. Not a war, but a modest use of force that does not spread by design (as the let’s-get-Iraq hawks in the Pentagon crave) or by accident.

In fact, it was a mistake for Bush to label this endeavor a “war on terrorism” and pitch it as a battle for freedom. “Terrorism” has long been a loaded word; used in this manner it creates an overly broad target. “War” raises expectations here, and in other lands fuels suspicions among those wary of U.S. intentions. And who believes that Bush is fighting for freedom, as he cuts deals with autocratic and repressive regimes to entice them into joining his anti-terrorism coalition? AlterNet