Return to Home PageEDITORIAL
Like any nation (or individual) so violently assaulted, the U.S. has been under enormous pressure from some quarters to give no quarter. Undoubtedly, a large number of Americans would have received an enormous psychological boost if our military had simply smashed the hell out of something -- anything -- in Afghanistan on Sept. 12. More recently, in light of the bravado of the Taliban in taunting America, it must have been tempting to reply, "What did you say? We can't hear you over the explosions!" Such reactions might have felt good temporarily, but they would have been bad eternally.
Instead, President Bush and his advisors have bided their time, paused to weigh consequences, studied the effectiveness of various methods, and, we hope, considered the morality of available responses. Too often in the past, presidents have simply flung random missiles and bombs in answer to terrorism, heedless to where they landed.
The Bush Administration appears to be taking a much different approach: assembling support from other nations, calming the legitimate fears of shaky countries in the Middle East, going after suspected terrorists within our borders, chopping away at the economic lifelines supporting terrorism, exploring how to aid insurgency groups in Afghanistan, and perhaps inserting covert troops into the region to find the enemy. On top of all that, the U.S. is supplying food to Afghan refugees who are fleeing into Pakistan out of fear.
Such activity reflects well on us as a nation. It means we want to punish those responsible, desire to help the innocent, and seek to proceed intelligently, not emotionally. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that "the Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict....The extermination of a people, nation or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin." If we and our leaders hold fast to principles like that, the American response will remain on the right track.