'EVIL' IS ONE TOUGH ENEMY

A war against evil-doers. Wiping evil from the face of the Earth. Those are
tall orders, though eminently necessary ones, that President Bush outlined
for the nation and world.

Evil - or at least sin - has been around since Adam first took a liking to
apple juice, and the conventional wisdom was that it would not or could not
be eliminated until Judgment Day. As a purposefully exaggerated slogan to
rally around as America marches off to a war against terrorism, Bush's
words hit the mark; as a practical goal, even he must know it's impossible.

In just the last generation, there have been at least four declared wars
against social ills, as opposed to enemy states: President Johnson's war
against poverty in the 1960s, President Ford's war against inflation in the
1970s, each succeeding president's war against drugs, and countless wars
against all crime in major metropolitan centers across the United States.
None has been totally won, though the $40 billion approved by Congress last
week for the latest war displays the type of massive, single-minded
commitment that might have done the job in any of those earlier decades.

By now, everyone must be coming to the realization that this will be no
Persian Gulf War, no quick-strike, in and out, relatively clean and
convenient battlefield.

It could very well be a war without end, a war requiring an infinite and
never-flinching resolve, for until the roots of terrorism are torn out like
trees and never allowed to reseed in the form of new generations of
radical, violent Muslims victory cannot be declared. This is not an enemy
that will raise a white flag like Japan did after Hiroshima or Nagasaki -
not even if, like most rational humans, his own people and life are in peril.

Going after the roots means neutering every known terrorist follower across
the globe and applying intense pressure, to the point of declaring war,
against any nation that gives them comfort and care. A news report in
recent days said Bush has "not ruled out ground troops." Well, that's great
news because there would be no other way to win.

"Going to the roots" for some observers so far has meant examining the
reasons why some Middle Eastern countries and inhabitants hate us so.
Certainly is a valid opinion, but it's tomorrow's discussion. It would be
comparable to letting off a convicted killer or rapist because "society"
was to blame for the crime. Without doubt, a war against (pick one)
poverty/crime/drugs will not be won without identifying the base problems.
But acknowledging that fact does not diminish the moral requirement to
sentence the criminal or, in this case, take down the terrorist.

Lastly, the president should be thankful that our allies have not held it
against us that we snubbed them over the Kyoto air emissions treaty and our
missile defense initiative. Although it might be in their best interests,
too, to snuff out terrorism, our global friends might invite attacks on
themselves by helping us. If London had absorbed an IRA attack on the scale
of New York and Washington, would we have assisted them or put America's
interests and only America's interests first - the direction our foreign
policy was heading before Sept. 11?

As one commentator said, the surprise attacks should "erase the concept in
some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against
terrorism, or in anything else for that matter." The words of some liberal
still upset over the November election? No, that came from the president's
father, the ex-president.