DON'T OVERSELL AN 'IDEA WAR'

Eighty-five percent of Americans today are in favor of war, according to a
recent New York Times poll. On the surface, that seems to be a powerful
statistic. In fact, it means only as much as the war does - which, in the
case of a war against terrorism, is very little. President Bush declared
war from the Oval Office and from a heap of rubble in lower Manhattan.
Congress did it, forcefully, from the floor of the Capitol. Pundits were
almost as unanimous.

It is important to pay attention to cooler heads, especially as forces
build at Afghanistan's frontiers. Secretary of State Colin Powell, for
instance, was quick to remind Americans that war is difficult when the
enemy has no land, no defenses, and no military target more concrete than
an idea.

Indeed, where is the United States military to fight? Afghanistan, which
has sheltered deadly terrorists for years, is an almost certain target. But
Pakistan, which has sheltered deadly terrorists for years, is suddenly an ally.

And how is the United States military to fight? It could bomb Afghanistan
to mountains and scrub, but Afghanistan is already little more than
mountains and scrub. It could send in troops, but if you are a terrorist,
and you see the US Army coming, you make like a civilian and head for a
crowd - or better, the border. The Soviet Army killed more than a million
people in Afganistan before giving up and withdrawing in defeat. Washington
has fought this kind of war before.

Every president since Richard Nixon has declared "war" on drugs. Every
presidential candidate has emphasized that he will win the war on drugs,
because each president before him has failed. But there is no drug lord in
chief, no single network to break, no one nation to beat or sanction into
submission. The idea of a war on drugs implies that we can eradicate the
problem - as likely as police eradicating crime or firefighters eradicating
fire - and that dooms the US to failure.

Even earlier, President Johnson's administration declared "war" on poverty.
Poverty is an insidious enemy. The suffering it visits upon Americans and
the world is staggering, the deaths slow and bitter. Yet the problem with a
war on poverty is the same as the problem with a war on drugs. The enemy is
vast and fluid, and victories against it are seldom more than a reminder of
how much remains.

These wars are "idea wars," in which leaders appropriate the language of
war to rally political support and signal big budget commitment. But we
have never moved aircraft carriers to combat poverty. We have not marched
ground troops on coca farmers. This time, for the first time, an idea war
is intended to be a shooting war as well. That is a dangerous and
politically risky proposition.

If our recent idea wars are any indication, our impending war against
terrorists could prove long, expensive, and bloody - yield little in the
way of meaningful results within the time frame that Americans have
typically been willing to support a foreign military campaign. Meanwhile,
the real fight against terrorism, an ongoing combination of thankless
police and intelligence work - more like fighting crime on a global scale
than waging war - could get overshadowed.

The 85 percent of Americans who support war expect victory. If that victory
is largely symbolic - for instance, forcing extradition of Osama bin Laden
or executing gunpoint justice abroad - war will have been a therapeutic
distraction.

Right now, Americans are consumed by grief and rage. Real retribution,
however, will come from aggressive counterterrorism efforts that pull
together the resources of America's military, intelligence, and law
enforcement communities. Struggle, but not war. There will be no parades
for the victories, many though they will be. It would be a shame if calls
for an impossible war diminished the real fight against terrorism as less
heroic than a vengeful march through Kabul.