WAR ON DRUGS A CLOSER FIT

Since the tragic events at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many
have suggested that the situation is analogous to the bombing of Pearl
Harbor, and that American resolve and military force can be used to defeat
the enemy. In fact, the war on terrorism may be more analogous to the war
on drugs.

When Japan attacked, we knew the enemy. The enemy had definable land,
government, population and property. When terrorists attack, the enemy is
amorphous. Terrorists are not tied to a single country or government, and
they are not a homogeneous group.

Similar to the war on drugs, the war on terrorism is rooted in good
intentions. But the mentality of war to deal with the problem is destined
to failure.

We can try to eradicate terrorism by trying to secure our borders,
increasing security at airports and pouring resources into domestic police
enforcement. In the war on drugs, these types of strategies have deterred
some drug activity, but the war rages on.

We can try to deter terrorists by retaliating against terrorists and those
who harbor or support them by imposing the highest forms of punishment and
retribution. In the war on drugs, higher penalties and longer prison
sentences have not vanquished drug dealers.

The lesson from the war on drugs is that terrorism, like drug abuse, is a
complex social problem that requires complex solutions. A law and order,
war and retribution strategy is not sufficient.

We must try to understand the causes of terrorism and gear our strategies
to deal with the underlying causes. We should not simply discount suicide
attackers as fanatics. In some instances, people contemplating terrorist
activities represent a just cause, though their tactics are completely
unjust. In those instances, the best prevention is to promote social
justice throughout the world. We cannot ignore oppression, hunger and other
social ills in other parts of the world, just because it is from outside
America. Consider how desperate one must be to be willing to commit suicide
for a cause.

In other instances, people have been indoctrinated with hate and raised to
commit terrorist activities. We -- all nations -- must challenge those who
teach hate and ensure that future generations are raised with more positive
values. With hate-mongering groups such as Hamas or the Taliban responsible
for the schooling of children, it should be no surprise that we are seeing
more extremism and violence in certain parts of the world.

The problem is not religion, as such, but the misuse of religion to promote
hate and violence. All religions must take responsibility for bringing
their extremist elements back to the true roots and tenets.

This is the information age, and information is certainly another element
of the solution. We need to ensure that people throughout the world have
access to information -- information about democracy, peace and social
justice. This means education, literacy and access to computers and other
forms of media. Why do Palestinians and Iraqis cheer when America is
attacked? What have they learned and what are they being told about
Americans? We need to understand prospective terrorists from their
perspectives and develop interventions to deal with their causes.

A military response and increased security measures could be part of the
solution, but violence could also beget more violence. Ghandi and Martin
Luther King Jr. have taught us the value of nonviolence. We must be ethical
in our response. We do not want to drop bombs on some foreign country
merely out of anger, to assuage our feelings of vulnerability or to
demonstrate our strength. We must have the resolve and compassion to work
together with the world community to create peace, security, and social
justice for all.

Allan Barsky, PhD, is associated with the Florida Atlantic University
School of Social Work, Boca Raton.