When terror sues for peace

By Matthew Meyerhofer

Last week, Osama bin Laden took the unusual action of offering a truce to the United States. The reasons for this gesture remain elusive. Administration officials took it as a sign that Al Qaeda is on the run.

But it's also possible that bin Laden is trying to appear more reasonable, especially to people in the Middle East, by suggesting that he is open to the idea of peace. Or it's possible that he is simply trying a new rhetorical strategy for disseminating his ideas. However, his real motives remain a mystery, at least for now.

The question that warrants serious attention and careful reflection is how we should respond to such a suggestion. Of course, it would be ridiculous to actually take bin Laden up on his offer. Not only is the idea that he could somehow control all of the various factions in the Middle East an incredulous proposal, but such a move would mean allowing a terrorist to dictate our diplomatic relations.

Instead, what I mean to call attention to is the fact that we may be prosecuting a war that precludes the possibility for peace.

Wars do not -- generally speaking -- end in the annihilation of one side or the other. There is almost always a peace settlement of some kind, whether or not one side is the conclusive victor. Even in as morally charged a war as World War II, the Allied Forces eventually offered a peace agreement to their enemies and helped rebuild their shattered homelands.

But the situation we are now in requires a different kind of logic. Almost by definition, there can be no mediated resolution. Since we have been repeatedly told that "The U.S. does not make deals with terrorists" and that this is a "War on Terrorism," the implication is that we must refuse to take diplomatic measures to help end the conflict.

And that is probably why Vice President Dick Cheney's response to bin Laden's overture was, "I think you have to destroy them. It's the only way to deal with them."

Don't get me wrong, the prevention of terrorism is and rightly should be a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. But the prevention of terrorism should not be construed exclusively as "war."

It is understandable why President Bush would make use of such terms, for he rightfully wants to impress upon the American people that this is no small-scale operation we are undertaking. It is an operation that requires the mobilization of a wide array of resources.

However, "war" also implies a set of specific military goals against a known enemy. A problem arises when one tries to stretch the logic of war to cover as broad a category as "terrorism."

"Terrorism" is not a nation-state or a military faction. It is a social phenomenon. And like any other social phenomenon -- for example, poverty or racism -- terrorism must be combated using a variety of means. Military action certainly plays a role in the solution, but it cannot single-handedly eliminate the problem of terrorism any better than affirmative action legislation can eliminate the problem of racism. The causes lie far deeper than bullets can penetrate.

Unfortunately, until national policy-makers take substantive action on these realizations, our struggles to thwart terrorism will remain stuck in the mires of intercultural conflict. This doesn't mean that we need to "bargain with terrorists." But it means we do need to enter into a dialogue with the cultural forces that have produced terrorists. This means taking a closer look at issues like economics, sociology, history, and religious dialogue at the same time we are examining politics and military strategy.

Sooner or later we are going to have to pull our military out of Iraq and Afghanistan. When that day comes, only the steps we have taken toward addressing the deeper problems of terrorism will leave us with genuinely improved national security.

Matthew Meyerhofer is a senior English major.