Stardate 20020126.0853

(Captain's log): There is a forum I participate in where in the aftermath of the September bombing, a participant from Australia began to strongly push the idea that the US had brought the attack on itself through its foreign policy up to that point.

I eventually blew up and flamed him with language I don't ordinarily use online. I rarely get that angry.

Now, sadly, he has decided that enough has time for the anger to cool and has brought the subject up again. What he's asking is whether, in light of the September attack, the fundamental principles guiding US foreign policy need to be changed.

The answer is yes, but not in the way he thinks. He's trying to push the "American evil cultural imperialism" idea, that if the US were to disengage with the world then no-one would hate us.

Actually, what has become clear is that the flaw in US foreign policy was that it was insufficiently interventionist — and insufficiently ruthless.

For example, it had been expressly forbidden for the CIA or NSA to deliberately kill hostiles out in the world. That was because of a standing Presidential order, and in the aftermath of the September attack, Bush removed that order. From now on, leaders of hostile groups (i.e. people like bin Laden) will be fair game.

But more important is that the US will have to start using its economic, diplomatic and military power more actively to support American interests, especially to suppress others who work against us.

In the aftermath of the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, and the attack on USS Cole, the United States spent several years talking to the Taliban and trying to use diplomacy to rein in bin Laden and al Qaeda. We now know that those efforts were futile because bin Laden was the real power in Afghanistan, but even if that had not been the case, why should the Taliban have been interested in making any concessions to the US? The situation was that they had nothing to lose by brushing us off, because they knew that the Clinton administration would not have the guts to enforce its demands militarily. American threats were empty; thus American diplomacy was toothless. It is true that the Clinton administration ordered one token strike with Tomahawks on Afghanistan; it's equally true that it made no difference whatever. The kind of military action which ultimately got the Taliban's attention in November was not going to happen in the 1990's. That's not about Clinton; it would not have happened even if a Republican had been President. The nation wasn't willing to be that aggressive at that time.

This gave our enemies carte blanche to plan and organize and raise money and acquire weapons and build their power and prepare a devastating attack against us, which they unleashed last September. It is clear that we cannot stand by passively and let that kind of thing happen again. It is not just al Qaeda which must now be suppressed, but also any other organization with similar goals.

The best way to stop a big forest fire is to put it out when it is still small. The US must now deliberately eliminate groups and movements which have the potential to become big dangers to us. That will occasionally include elimination of hostile governments, which means that there must be a change in Iraq. If that can be achieved without military force, all the better, but if a war is required then it must be fought.

The irony, therefore, is that the US must become what it was falsely accused of being before the September attack. Our enemies were able to organize against us because they were contemptuous of our power. US foreign policy must now change that. It is not possible for us to convert hatred into friendship, but we can convert contempt into dread. We always have and will continue to reward our friends. Now we must also punish our enemies.

"It is better to be feared than loved, more prudent to be cruel than compassionate." -- Machiavelli