Commentary of Jeffrey Gedmin Americans Aren't at War with Islam

The horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have transformed the national security debate in the United States. Suicide hijackers killed in a single morning more people than the Japanese killed at Pearl Harbor. And these casualties were soldiers, not innocent civilians. America is going to war. Do America's allies know it yet?

"We do not face a war," says Defense minister Rudolf Scharping. There's much talk in European capitals that solidarity with the Americans should not be equated with a "blank check" for U.S. actions. The Berliner Zeitung frets that American action in Afghanistan might destabilize neighboring Pakistan; La Reppublica about unrest across the Muslim world. Le Figaro demands American "restraint" and the FrankjiJrter Rundschau, too, is concerned about Americans being wrapped up in their emotions ["Noch sind die Amerikaner mit den eigenen Emotionen beschaeftigt.”] The Sueddeutsche Zeitung bas specific advice: "if America wants security, then it must help solve the Palestinian problem [Wenn Amerika Sicherheit will, muss es den Palaestinakonflikt loesen helfen."]

In his first eight months in office, George W. I Bush never had a moment's rest with the Europeans. He was the "toxic Texan," the bully unilateralist, who loves the death penalty, likes global warming, and is obsessed with costly ballistic missile defense. Now there's even a hint in some circles that American policies bear some responsibility for the deadly terrorist attacks of September II.

The Bush administration may have already surprised its critics. In the first three weeks after the attacks, the U.S. refrained from firing a single shot. It's "abundantly clear," said one senior EU official after a Washington visit, that this is "not an administration which is gung-ho, which is thinking just of launching a few cruise missiles" It is clear. American strategy will be comprehensive and coordinated. Behind the rhetoric of solidarity, a transatlantic discussion about strategy has begun. Herewith guidelines to the debate.

One. America cannot go it alone. The U.S. needs allies on all fronts. It's why the President and senior officials have already consulted with scores of officials from abroad. Let America learn. Through this dreadful event, we may see an end to the worst of America's indiscriminate unilateralism. And American hubris, perhaps, too. George W. Bush was right to reject the Kyoto protocol. It was a flawed treaty. He was wrong, though, to reach for such narrow and parochial "America First" arguments. If the American President wants to lead he has to do so by persuasion; and by invoking broader principles and fusing our national interests with the interests of others. It's the way Ronald Reagan led in the Cold War. Mr. Bush has a chance. He needs allies to prosecute his anti-terror campaign. But he can also use the campaign to revive the credibility of US. leadership on a number of issues.

Two. A comprehensive campaign will have a robust military component. U.S. strategy will include economic, diplomatic, and law enforcement elements. But For many Europeans, especially the Gem1ans, the sustained military action Americans now contemplate will not be easy to accept. History, culture, temperament- and differences in capabilities-all play a role and help explain why. It's why there's really no surprise that Tony Blair's Labor government has lined up so quickly aside Mr. Bush.

Across Germany, though, commentators have begun to parrot platitudes about how the use of military force will add to a spiral of violence. Apocalyptic visions quickly emerge.

Let facts drive the debate. After the Gulf War, United Nations arms inspections teams interviewed Iraqi field commanders and asked why Baghdad never used chemical or biological weapons to strike at the U.S.-led coalition. The answer was simple as it was unanimous: fear that the U.S. would retaliate massively and finish the regime. Deterrence works, at least often. So does the use of force, when judiciously applied.

As for Afghanistan, the naysayers have already started, of course. The target is elusive; the fighters fierce. The terrain is abominable, they say. The Russians were but the last to try and failure there, right? It all sounds familiar. Before the Gulf War, experts argued that our equipment would not function in the desert; that the battle hardened Iraqi Republican Guard would exact thousands of allied casualties; and yes, that the enraged Arab masses would rise up with vengeance. Who could forget, then, the images of hapless Iraqi troops trying to surrender to American helicopters?

Americans believe that a serious, long-term effort will be bloody (Three out of four Americans say they're prepared for a long war with high casualties). Can we prevail against the Taliban? One leading Russian General, Boris Agapov, who fought there in the 19805, says yes. The Americans, says Agapov, have the technology, military capability, and financial resources that Moscow never had- and they’ll learn from Russian mistakes. Of course, the U.S. and its allies will never eliminate entirely terrorist threats. But they can make it harder, more dangerous and more expensive for the perpetrators and those who protect them. Military power will play an important role.

Three. It’s time for moral and political clarity. Are there root causes to the problem? Sure. But Islamic terrorism in the end has precious little to do with Israel, U.S. support for the Jewish state, globalization, or other Western policies. Or if Israel disappeared tomorrow, would someone really wish to argue radical Islam would be gone too? The wholesale failure of the Arab world to modernize and democratize explains above all why the virus of Islamic extremism has managed to spread so extensively. The German government was apparently surprised to discover this summer that Palestinian textbooks (funded by Germany and other EU countries) were filled with anti-Semitic content. Guten Morgen, Deutschland.

Look at the maps in these same textbooks-or for that matter, in the offices of senior officials throughout the Arab world-and you’ll notice that Israel does not exist. Read the mainstream press of a country like moderate Egypt today and you’ll learn that George W. Bush orchestrated the attacks in New York and Washington- to reverse his declining popularity. Yes, Yasar Arafat (still) believes in terror as a political instrument. No, CNN did not fabricate images of some Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate mass murder in the U.S.

The lack of democracy across the Arab world prohibits the development of liberal values, habits, behavior. But to say so does not suggest a “clash of civilizations” either. We have no animus toward Islam. We found ourselves fighting to save the Slavic Muslims in Bosnia from slaughter- by Christian Serbs; and then again, defended the Albanians of Kosovo against murderous ethnic cleansing. The Bush administration announced recently that it is purchasing 100,000 tons of wheat from American farmers to distribute to the poor of Afghanistan. There’s more that we can and should do to make clear that this is not a war against Muslims.