Peace is a great thing. After the pain and fear of September 11, I want nothing more than to stop worrying about sirens and loud noises, to no longer see daily scenes of carnage, and to return to regularly scheduled television. I sympathize with the slogans on Walker Wall that implore peace. Yet, as is obvious from the recent attacks on the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, America’s road to peace will be long, arduous and potentially bloody.

The American retaliation, which has so far consisted of aerial bombing against Taliban military installations, command and control infrastructure, and terrorist training facilities, has been relatively modest in scale. This is largely because there are very few military targets in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon’s argument for these strikes is that they are needed before further military action against Afghanistan is possible (this will likely include ground troops and helicopter gunships). There are now a large number of different military options being considered to depose the Taliban.

The problem is that even if the Taliban is deposed, the governmental options for Afghanistan are dismal. There is no guarantee that the Taliban will not be replaced with another oppressive government. The Northern Alliance that might replace the Taliban, for example, has a dismal human rights record.

A repressive Afghan government regardless of whether or not it is backed by the United States could well lead to the governmental equivalent of a bad Hollywood sequel: The Taliban Returns.

Avoiding this scenario will be extremely difficult, and to believe that a country that has experienced twenty years of bloodshed and tyranny can transition smoothly to liberal democracy is naïve. However, it is possible that with international help and pressure, Afghanistan could move towards a more tolerant and stable government.

This desirable approach will require a U.S. policy that focuses more on diplomacy and social relief efforts than on military action. Considering the President’s opposition to nation building, it seems that America’s policy will be to let events run their course once its military objectives have been achieved. This approach is dangerous, as it provides no real long-term solution for Afghanistan or the instability that perpetuates terrorism.

Many students at Pomona have made it quite clear that they oppose U.S. military retaliation against terrorists or countries that support terrorism. Some students have even argued that America is partly responsible for the bombings because of its policies in the Middle East that upset the terrorists. Others have suggested that in the wake of the national tragedy of September 11 it is the ideal time to rally for global peace.

The pacifism at Pomona and other college campuses stands in marked contrast to the belligerence of the mainstream press. The day after the bombing, The Washington Post called for a war at any price and vowed that the United States should make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that harbored them. They quoted Franklin Roosevelt in support of their resolve to press forth to absolute victory. President Bush has echoed many of these same sentiments.

Both pacifism and blind militancy are shortsighted. The complexity of global terrorism demands a sophisticated response.

If America accepts terrorism by not responding or complies with the demands of terrorists, it will only invite those countries and individuals who oppose our policies to respond with more terrorism. Moreover, even if we were to meet all of the demands laid before us by bin Laden and Islamic fundamentalists there would still be people willing to kill Americans through terrorism.

By that same token, if America responds with excessive force, there is a very real possibility that we will not only make a mockery of the values we claim to uphold but also alienate the world. The consequence of this second course is as dire as the first: a future age of darkness and fear. Therefore, a forceful yet thoughtful response is needed. No one should ever have to live in fear of terrorism.

I have not always supported American foreign policy. I spent the better part of last summer pulling my hair out as I read story after story about George W. Bush’s unilateralism and saw it alienating both our friends and enemies. Today, I have my reservations about the current military action and its effectiveness at ending terrorism. I do not fear battle when America is challenged to it but I do fear a war in vain. I do not want my generation to be the generation that died on the plains of Afghanistan and in the deserts of Sudan only to perpetuate even more suffering and anger and the terrorism that comes with it.

In 1940, Eve Currie, the French author, speaking just after her country went to war with Germany recognized that "peace at any price is no peace at all" and that living in fear is the greatest of evils. The attack on the Taliban was America’s response because we no longer will accept to live in fear. It was only the first of many attacks and it is, at this point, too early to tell if this policy will be successful at walking the finest of lines between excess and complacency.

All Americans have a responsibility to remain skeptical of their government, especially in times of crisis. I hope that there can be a lively and influential debate about military action and what form it should take, if any. Because, for all this country’s shortcomings, the fact that debate is possible, even in the most difficult times, proves that America is something worth fighting for.