The U.S. air strikes that began in Afghanistan Oct. 7 were the opening salvos in what the Bush administration has said will be long-term policy. “The president?s approach to this is that it will be continuous, but that it will be broadly based and it will be economic, political and diplomatic as well as military, overt and covert,” said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This should be questioned.

First, to determine the proper long-term policy, the root of the terrorist cause must be assessed. Two schools of thought have emerged. One holds that terrorists are inherently anti-American and would wage war on the United States regardless of policy changes in the Middle East. Wrote columnist Thomas L. Friedman in The New York Times, “These terrorists aren?t out for a kind of coexistence with us. They are out for non-existence.” Friedman makes some interesting points in favor of this theory, pointing out that planning for the Sept. 11 attacks most likely took place during a diplomatic high point in Osama bin Laden?s heavily trumpeted Israel/Palestine crisis. He also points out that middle class Saudi attackers did not come from the destitute conditions that some say are breeding terrorism.

The other major theory cites American policy as the main cause of anti-Americanism, not simply the idea of America as the “Great Satan.” This policy includes the death of 500,000 Iraqi children after the Gulf War; support of Saddam Hussein before the war; the 1953 coup in Iran and support for its butcher, the Shah; and support for anti-Arab policies in Israel. Supporters of this theory say that these conditions are the root of terrorism and must be eliminated. A less forceful military approach and smaller military presence would have to be enacted.

Which of the above beliefs the Bush administration holds will be essential to the creation of long term-policy against terrorism. If current actions are any indication, they agree with Friedman. This is disturbing. Rather than going at the conditions that produce terrorism, the Bush administration is escalating them. Deals with rival police states near Afghanistan and the Middle East, and prodding political unrest in Pakistan will only make life harder for civilians of the region. What better recruiting ground for terrorism? The Taliban employ 3,000 to 4,000 Pakistani troops in their army. Upsetting other areas in the region and supporting local despots could further fan anti-American flames.

America has every right to attack the Taliban government and bin Laden after the atrocities of Sept. 11. This could have positive short-term results if bin Laden is captured or driven permanently into hiding. However, the long-range political, economic and military solution is a mistake. The policy that the Bush administration begins will set the tone for years to come. We have the opportunity to adopt modern, constructive policies of curbing arms sales and nuclear development in the Third World, leading the world in productive international treaties and forming a coherent international law that shuns dictatorship.

Instead, the Bush administration is opting for policies that are disturbingly similar to those of the Cold War. If George W. Bush does decide to go after the assortment of other countries in the region that support terrorism, it will cost America dearly. The probable increase in defense spending will come at the expense of crucial domestic programs. The hard earned budget surplus will evaporate as well. It should also be noted that this type of “covert” and “overt” action is inherently undemocratic, considering how much the public will be kept in the dark. We must not let citizens? concerns and values become subordinate to state security. Do not forget the “covert” action that overthrew elected regimes in Iran and Guatemala, caused a military disaster in Cuba, left Cambodia ripe for Communist takeover and armed countries like Afghanistan to the teeth. These follies, of course, are never revealed until it is too late for the public to act. And of course, as a hallmark of Cold War faux pas, the Bush administration appears ready to deal with any oppressive regime that will help accomplish our short-term objectives. Looking the other way to our human rights fears in countries like Iran, Pakistan and Tajikstan in exchange for short-term favors is an affront to our own professed values.

Escalating a war on terrorism over the long term will have a slim chance of success, considering their small and scattered numbers. It does not take a vast “network” to coordinate their low-tech effort. Also, terrorism is not a single entity that will bankrupt itself economically, a-la the Soviet Union. The best answer, unfortunately, is the long and difficult route of a new policy in the Middle East.

Finally, our one-track view of terrorism, like Soviet Russia in the Cold War, will force us to neglect thoughtful policies needed to confront a complex world. We must not allow our concern for terrorism to overshadow other concerns in the world, or our domestic challenges. They will not wait.

Joshua K. Leon is opinion editor of The State Hornet and a journalism major. He can be reached for any questions, comments or suggestions at [email protected].