[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed: The Timid War on Terrorism

[The Ayn Rand Institute]

Dear Editor, 

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute.

THE TIMID WAR ON TERRORISM
Despite America's military prowess, she is not winning the war

By Elan Journo and Yaron Brook 

Although American forces impressively deposed the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, 
the nearly two-year-long War on Terrorism is, in fact, going badly.

The tragedy is that we lack not weapons, nor military prowess, nor bravery; our military 
is the most powerful in the history of the world. The problem lies not with our armed 
forces, but with the ideas guiding our military campaign. Consider how we fought the two 
major battles of the war so far: Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan we exposed our self-crippling ambivalence about the purpose of the war. 
If our goal was to wipe out al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban hosts as a step toward 
eliminating militant Islam, we should have attacked ruthlessly. But we were tentative. 
As we dropped bombs, we also showered the country with food and medicines, some of which 
doubtless made it into the hands of the Taliban.

Early on President Bush had promised: "I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not 
relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." Yet in 
Afghanistan, on orders from Washington, our military *did* yield--refraining from 
bombing mosques; it *did* rest--calling for needless cease-fires during the Tora Bora 
siege; it *did* relent--catering to the wishes of our coalition "allies," who demanded 
that we limit the number of American ground forces. In deference to the wishes of 
such "allies" as Saudi Arabia, a known financier of terrorism, our military had to rely 
largely on proxy soldiers led by venal warlords, who let the enemy flee.

By hampering our military operations, Washington subverted them. The forces of al Qaeda, 
scattered rather than eradicated, continue to plot against us. American soldiers die 
almost daily in skirmishes with lingering Taliban and al Qaeda forces.

In the war against Iraq, the timidity of the Administration was obvious. Though 
President Bush had explained the threat of Iraqi weapons and expertise falling into the 
hands of terrorists--and our urgent need to act--he dithered, groveling abjectly before 
the United Nations for approval. The battle plans he finally issued were seemingly 
calculated to thwart the efforts of our military. Even as we sought to wipe out 
Hussein's regime, our goal, apparently, was to avoid upsetting Iraqis. As was true in 
Afghanistan, high-priority targets such as power stations were to be spared, and our 
military was ordered methodically to pull their punches. It is much to the credit of our 
soldiers that they succeeded while bearing only minor casualties, despite Washington's 
contradictory injunctions.

The Iraq war, however, has done nothing to quell Islamic terrorism. Whereas Afghanistan, 
the stronghold of al Qaeda, was a plausible first target, Iraq was not a major base of 
terrorists, nor the most significant supporter of them. We have let the arch-sponsors of 
Islamic terrorism--Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran--believe that they are untouchable. 
Observe that terrorism against American and Western interests--from Indonesia to Kenya 
to Morocco--continues unabated. The American people, urged by Washington to believe that 
Iraq was a success, cannot fathom why more of our soldiers are dying there now than 
during the hostilities. We should not be surprised if our resolve to fight is 
diminishing.

To defend American lives properly, we should target not terrorism, a tactic, but 
militant Islam, the ideology that motivates the terrorists. But we have been flailing in 
unpredictable directions, unsure of where to go next, because the war lacks a clear 
purpose.

Why? The Bush Administration lacks moral confidence. At every turn we blushingly 
pretended that we are fighting to liberate the oppressed Afghans or tyrannized Iraqis--
anything but confess what we should proclaim loudly: that we value and seek to protect 
American lives. Facing the prospect of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 
Administration quailed. It should have asserted that, though such casualties are 
regrettable, they are the responsibility of the regime that initiated force against us. 
Instead, America was guilt-ridden, apologetic and appeasing.

We are not winning the war, but we could be.

Our Founding Fathers did not have even one hundredth of America's present military 
power, but they were armed with the conviction that political freedom is an ideal worth 
fighting for. Their moral certainty gave them the courage necessary to fight for their 
independence from England, the 18th century's lone superpower. We are at war with 
militant Islamists who lust for our annihilation. Our survival depends, not only on 
having a more powerful military, but on the courage to use our might--to act on what is 
*morally* proper--to act on our urgent need of ferocious self-defense.
______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). Elan Journo is a 
senior writer for ARI in Irvine, Calif. The Institute (www.aynrand.org/medialink) 
promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The 
Fountainhead.  Send comments to reaction at aynrand.org

Copyright (c) 2003 Ayn Rand(r) Institute

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to media at aynrand.org with your 
publication's name and the expected date of publication. Thank you,

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute 
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: media at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit reply and type REMOVE 
in the subject line. Thank you.