At the heart of President Bush's war on terrorism lies a deepening contradiction that, unless resolved, will undermine the legitimacy of the entire war effort. The contradiction is embedded in the narrative of why we are at war and what it will take to win.
On the one hand, the White House describes the war as one without obviousend. Administration officials say repeatedly that victory is elusive and may lastdecades or more. Indeed, we're told, the fight has barely begun. "Afghanistan isjust the beginning of the war against terror," the president said recently."There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there areother nations willing to sponsor them."
America's goal is breathtaking in scope; it is also vague. The administrationhas committed itself to no less a task than rooting out global terrorism. "Wewill not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated," Bushsaid. "Across the world and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, andwe will win." The White House is now laying the groundwork for taking the war toIraq. Rather than limiting the goal to stopping Saddam Hussein's aggression, aswe did in Kuwait, or forcing Hussein to re-admit inspectors looking forbiological or nuclear weapons, the administration is about to fold Iraq'sdictator into the wider cause. Bush warns that any nation caught building weaponsof mass destruction "that will be used to terrorize nations" will suffer the sameconsequences as terrorists and the countries that harbor them. This is, in short,a permanent war.
On the other hand, the war is also described as a national emergency. And insuch times, everyone--especially the media and those who do not belong to theincumbent political party--is expected to suspend criticism of a sittingpresident. No one dares question Bush's competence, motives, or tactics. To do sowould be unpatriotic.
It is also understood that a wartime emergency may require extraordinarymeasures, including some abridgment of freedom at home. "The option to use amilitary tribunal in the time of war makes a lot of sense," the president saidrecently, adding, "I need to have that extraordinary option at my fingertips."
There is ample historic precedent. That's why there hasn't been more outcryagainst the measures that are being taken within our borders--not just usingmilitary tribunals but imprisoning thousands of people without formally chargingthem, interrogating thousands of others largely because they come from the MiddleEast, allowing the FBI to eavesdrop on conversations between lawyers and theirclients, jailing noncitizens even after an immigration judge has ordered themfreed, and deporting perfectly legal noncitizens if the attorney general believesthat they endanger the nation's security.
Additional "extraordinary" measures are forthcoming: AttorneyGeneral John Ashcroft is considering a plan to allow the FBI to spy on politicaland religious organizations in the United States--returning us to the secretpractices of J. Edgar Hoover. The Pentagon is planning to put a senior militaryofficial in charge of the internal defense of the nation.
But emergencies are temporary; extraordinary measures are not ordinary.Banana republics routinely declare "emergencies" that end up being permanent, butAmerican democracy doesn't work that way. Regardless of how popular a war mightbe initially, a state of emergency cannot continue forever.
At some point, our war aims will have to be specified with greater clarity,and emergency measures will need to be delimited. The White House will have toprovide us with criteria for how we will know when we have won the war and how wecan gauge progress along the way. Indeed, the longer and more ambitious the war,the more important is such clarity. For four and one-half decades, the UnitedStates fought the Cold War with the Soviet Union, usually with the strong supportof the American public. The aim of that war was indubitable: to contain Sovietcommunism. When the means became so far removed from that end that success wasimpossible to assess--as in Vietnam--public support evaporated.
Conditions justifying emergency actions at home will have to be reassessed atregular intervals, in order to assure Americans that the steps are stillrequired. "Sunset" provisions will need to be incorporated into all orders anddirectives. Congress will have to be more directly involved in oversight.
Once the administration clarifies our war aims and implements an ongoingevaluation of our progress in achieving them (and of the "emergency" measuresemployed), the media and the Democrats will have to be willing to take on thepresident. Even in an open-ended war--even in a far-reaching emergency--this is,after all, a democracy.