As in the past, only military action can stop terrorism
By Aaron Phelps
Student Columnist

In the wake of Sept. 11, Americans overwhelmingly support what President George W. Bush has called the War on Terrorism, but as with all military mobilizations this one is shadowed by calls condemning the use of violence to end violence. This view represents nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction based on the false premise that no good can come from military action. Even in the wake of the slaughter of over 6,000 Americans they suggest violence is not the answer, though these individuals never offer a viable alternative.

In fact, violence in the form of a broad, encompassing military assault is the only answer. Just as it takes two to make war, it takes two to make peace, and the terrorist camp is only interested in the former. You cannot use economic sanctions on non-government entities, nor can you use sanctions on governments that have no economy. The idea of some international criminal court is equally preposterous. First, the accused are not simply going to show up, and second, it has little deterrent effect.

In Andrew Whitacre’s column (“The cost of exacting vengeance,” Sept. 27), he suggested that our nation has not learned the lessons of the Second World War, but based on his comments I think he is the only one who is confused. World War II is the clearest demonstration that nations can in fact be divided into good and evil, contrary to Cooper Baker’s column (“Emotions of Sept. 11 have yielded blind patriotism,” Oct. 4). Evil is any government that rounds up Jews like animals – starves and beats them, then gasses them followed by an unceremonious bulldozing of the human remains. That, Mr. Baker, is an example of an evil regime. Good is any nation that ends this slaughter and promotes freedom, liberty and basic human rights, and magnanimous is any nation that rebuilds and frees the same country they just defeated.

Just as the governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan were evil in the ’40s, so too are the governments of nations that promote and harbor terrorists – whose stated purpose is the mass destruction of human life.

What is so ironic is that the pacifists and apologists that live and breathe their right to free speech and free protest fail to understand that that right was secured through violence. Our Constitution is not the product of some peace rally and negotiation – it is the product of many human lives. The Civil War is another historical example of the use of violence in the name of good and against evil. Was slavery not evil? Was military action not the only way to end this institution that had already survived an unthinkable length of time? I wonder if the same pacifists protesting the use of violence against terrorists today would have fought and died for the end of slavery or would they have chanted their predictable mantra – give peace a chance.

And, of course, World War II. There were pacifists voices then as well – yet are we not proud that we rose to the occasion, that we fought for freedom, that we prevented the murder of thousands of more Jews, and that from all that bloodshed emerged a freer and healthier Europe? Does anyone prefer that the Nazis might control Europe today? Because without military action – and military action that resulted in great numbers of both civilian and military casualties, this would be the case. America’s greatest triumphs – the Revolution, the end of slavery and the end of fascism – were all achieved by the sword.

The greatest criticism of World War II is that we should have acted sooner – we were too reserved and too peaceful – as we have been in this war. Before Sept. 11 we knew that Osama bin Laden was responsible for several terrorist attacks against U.S. targets. We knew that he had the means for more destruction and we knew he had the will – but we chose to give him the time. We should have initiated the campaign we have now entered several years ago, but of course we are so judicious with the use of military force that we waited until 6,000 people were dead and tens of thousands more had lost family members. I hope that we will not repeat this error. If we stop this effort before all terrorist networks are destroyed and the nations that support them are removed, then we sacrifice thousands, perhaps millions of lives more – not only American, but those of any nation whose people share our values.

It is abundantly clear that Saddam Hussein has been developing chemical and biological weapons – does anyone doubt that he would delight in using them on us? Does anyone doubt that bin Laden and his henchmen would be happy to deliver those weapons to us? The idea that we have to wait until after the inevitable happens before we take action is insanity of the worst order.

What we need is neither a proportional nor a measured response, but rather an effective response. Every effort should be made to minimize civilian casualties, but just as in every other conflict we have entered, civilians will unfortunately be killed. This is not what we asked for, but simply the reality of the world the terrorists have chosen to create.

Despite some people’s misguided fantasies to the contrary – comprehensive military action is not only fundamentally necessary, but also morally and historically justified. This war is not some reactionary blood thirst, but a conscious recognition of what is so obviously necessary – the complete destruction of terrorist evil.