WSJ

AMERICA AT WAR

Air Strikes Shouldn't Raise 'False Hopes' Bush needs to be even more Churchillian than he already has been.

BY ELIOT A. COHEN Monday, October 8, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Who could have imagined, last November, that George W. Bush would find himself reaching--successfully--for Churchillian rhetoric in announcing the beginning of operations against men who had the blood of thousands of Americans upon their hands? Yet that is what he did yesterday in declaring that "we will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail." It was an effective reworking of Churchill's line from the "Give us the tools" speech of Feb. 9, 1941: "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire."

The formal launching of operations in Afghanistan (one may assume that U.S. forces have not been inactive there during weeks past) marked a new phase in the war taken to a new level, but not begun, by the deadly attacks of Sept. 11. The initial blast of missiles and bombs will, of themselves, merely prepare the ground for a combination of measures, including the sponsorship of Afghan surrogates and the activity of special forces and light infantry, to overthrow the Taliban regime and, if possible, lay hands on Osama bin Laden and key members of al Qaeda.

President Bush was appropriately clear in explaining to the American people that this will be an extended contest--though he spoke of "months" when "years" may be more correct. He remained, in addition, committed to a broader definition of these operations than the mere apprehension or elimination of the particular band that committed the attacks of Sept. 11. "The battle is broader," he said, and "if any government sponsors the outlaws . . . they have become outlaws," and "will take that lonely path at their own peril."

So far, so good, although this is a far more limited war than that fought by Churchill. President Bush's carefully modest description of the operations under way--intended to "disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations" and "attack the military capability of the Taliban regime"--suggest something less ambitious than what one might expect (the overthrow of the Taliban, for example, is a far more plausible goal). At the same time, there is something misleading, if understandable, in the insistence that "your mission is defined, your objectives clear." In this war the United States will attempt to skirt the unpleasant reality that its opponents are not an isolated handful of outcast fanatics, but the representatives of a deep current of hostility to the West, and in some ways to modernity itself.

The president deserves credit for defining this contest as war, not crime; for warning the American people of more terror to come; for building coalitions of convenience as well as of conviction without making them ends in themselves; for saying that states that support terror as well as the terrorists themselves will become our targets; for understanding that this war must take place on many fronts, including those of public opinion and humanitarian assistance; and for expressing in simple but eloquent terms the patriotism and resolve of the American people. He and his advisers, however, would do well to heed some of the Churchillian wisdom in the speech from which they borrowed so well.

That speech was, to begin with, several times as long as that of President Bush, beginning as it did with the remark that although in wartime deeds should trump words, "it is a good thing to look around from time to time and take stock." Part of Churchill's genius, unappreciated today, was his ability to explain at great length how the war was going, and his belief in the importance of doing so. In coming weeks and months, the president and his representatives should do the same, with candor and at length, keeping the American people and the world at large as well informed as they can be, within the limits of security, and refraining from the easy, unworthy and ultimately self-destructive self-congratulation that has characterized most U.S. uses of military power since Korea.

Churchill noted that even though he had attempted not to encourage "false hopes, or prophesy smooth and easy things" that he must go further, and "dwell upon the more serious, darker, and more dangerous aspects of the vast scene of the war." In the present case, it is entirely conceivable that the Taliban will fall, that rangers and SAS troopers will gun down bin Laden and his lieutenants, and that particularly noxious regimes that sponsor terrorists will melt away.

It is also conceivable, unfortunately, that friendly regimes may collapse or even give way to regimes as monstrous as that we are attacking in Afghanistan, that the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf will be disrupted, and that acts of terror will afflict American cities even more severely than they have New York. We should be ready for that possibility too.

Churchill did not hesitate to warn his people of trials to come, to summon their courage and efforts. He knew that it was his task to mobilize a people for war. That task our government has barely begun. We will know that it is serious when we see a suspension of cumbersome procedures that prevent talented men and women from entering government service speedily in time of emergency; when we see a transformation in the culture of organizations that we depend upon to safeguard our borders, our food supply, and our airports; when new organizations, both civil and military, arise with extensive powers to cooperate and to act to guard us at home and abroad; when financial resources available for all aspects of national defense appear not as supplementals to previous budget proposals, but as permanent increases.

"Neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down." It is the job of leaders to ensure that the public is prepared for both shocks and trials. Unlike Churchill, however, President Bush need merely to ask for the tools to have them at hand. It will then be up to him to finish the job, however long and difficult that may be.

Mr. Cohen is a professor of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2001