President Bush is leading the United States and an international coalition to fight against terrorism. He and other foreign leaders have also made clear that the fight is not against Islam or Arabs but the perpetrators of global terrorism and countries who harbor them. This raises the question:
We know what we are against, but what are we for?
During each of the three global wars the United States waged in the 20th century the United States felt the need to espouse grander, positive war aims. Some months after entry into World War I, defeating the Kaiser no longer sufficed; Wilson asserted that the world must be made safe for democracy, and he espoused his 14 points as the model for the post-war world.
In World War II Roosevelt and Churchill similarly reasoned that defeating Nazism and the Axis Powers was insufficient to motivate the Allies through the difficult struggle, so they offered the broader vision of the Atlantic Charter.
In the Cold War for too long the United States struggled simply "against communism." The positive goals of freedom and independence were either not trumpeted effectively or compromised by U.S. support for non-democratic regimes based on their fierce anti-communism. The tide in the Cold War turned, among other things, when President Carter endorsed human rights worldwide, and President Reagan advocated the principles of a free enterprise, market economy.
With the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States retreated from an active, engaged foreign policy, concentrated on domestic priorities and let the new world order drift. The Bush administration now has another opportunity to create a new world order, a chance usually afforded to only a few leaders infrequently during a century. Beginning now to contemplate the principles and larger goals of such a new world has several advantages.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The answer will help to let us know when we and the international coalition have won. Fighting solely against terrorism gives no guidance on what to do after Osama bin Laden is killed or captured. Will the war be over? Does the coalition shift direction to another target?
Bands of terrorists will not sign an unconditional surrender document, signaling success. After most of Al Qaeda is eliminated, can we lay down our arms? How long do we remain vigilant and have armed combat forces deployed abroad seeking battle? What about other terrorist groups having international range but perhaps not a "global reach"?
Second, what will be the glue holding the current international coalition together? The global rage and desire for retribution suffice for the present, but what will continue to motivate publics and soldiers in the future, after a "phony war" lull sets in? Past crusades against terrorism and wars against drugs all succumbed to apathy or lethargy.
A number of states have enlisted in the coalition with the hope of receiving negotiated quid pro quos, whether debt forgiveness, sanctions removal, or other narrower, national objectives. As the memory of Sept. 11 fades, after they have received their payoff, or after they discover that their national goals seem low on the U.S. list of priorities, these states could begin to reassess their stance in this war. Some nations may go so far as to conclude unilateral cease-fires with terrorists or states harboring them. Establishing positive war goals could help to keep the current coalition united.
A fourth benefit of establishing larger positive war goals is that they could provide a needed compass for U.S. foreign and security policy. Overnight the Bush administration has fundamentally reshaped America's foreign policy with a singular focus on the fight against terrorism. Long-established priorities have been replaced by new objectives.
Which other policy goals will or should be sacrificed during this war? Where do development assistance, support for human rights, promoting the rule of law, reducing trade barriers, non-proliferation, and countless other important foreign policy elements fit into America's overall policy priorities? Establishing positive objectives could give valuable guidance to disparate officials throughout the government, making U.S. policy more coherent and sensible.
Perhaps the major rationale for seeking larger, positive objectives is that such opportunities arise seldom in world history. In the normal course of events, positions harden, attention shifts, and chances to remake the world seem hopeless.
The Sept. 11 attacks cracked the concrete locking established policies in place, making possible heretofore unforeseen tectonic shifts. Suddenly a Kashmir settlement no longer seems beyond reach; U.S.-Russian cooperation has been transformed; the stalemate in U.S.-Iranian relations seems surmountable, to name only a few.
President Bush has an opportunity that may not arise again for a generation. As Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Labor Party congress recently, "Let us reorder this world around us" and "create lasting good out of the shadow of evil." It would be a tragedy to squander this rare chance.
This article is not suggesting specific objectives; these should emerge from an internal U.S. and intra-coalition process. The Bush administration has woken up to the value of international partners. The administration deserves high marks for its skill in international coalition building. It would be wise to continue that effort and seize this rare opportunity to remake the world.
by Peter Schoettle
Knight Ridder-Tribune
Peter Schoettle is on the senior staff of the Center for Public Policy Education at the Brookings Institution.
He can be reached at
pschoettle@brookings.edu.
