The Bush administration’s decision to describe the re-sponse to the Sept. 11 attack on America as a “war on terrorism” is unfortunate. President Bush’s extension of it to a worldwide war against all terrorism is dangerous. Use of the war image and language, while rhetorically pleasing to many, raises false expectations that simple solutions are available for complex issues, complicates the search for remedies, and makes closure much more difficult. Enforcing law and order has a much better chance of reaching a just and lasting solution for the criminal acts of Sept. 11.

War is customarily waged by nations against nations. Today the Bush administration has created a nearly incredible spectacle. Almost every government in the world has coalesced against an audaciously destructive individual and his shadowy organization. Osama bin Laden sits on a remote mountainside in Afghanistan, inveighing against foreign domination, the evil intent and immoral conduct of his adversaries, and justifying his indiscriminate violence by pointing to that of his adversaries.

Ironically, he gained initial worldwide prominence as the target of the Clinton administration’s 1998 missile strike against his training camps in Afghanistan. He has now been elevated to international preeminence by the Bush administration’s identification of him as the leader of the other side in the war on terrorism.

While the balance of power may seem uneven, his anti-establishment message in a world full of poverty, injustice, and repressive governments has a powerful appeal to masses of people, especially those who share his religious faith. War elevates his power and magnifies his message.

The hijacking and destruction on Sept. 11 were criminal acts of unprecedented proportions that must be dealt with by enforcing law and order. The immediate perpetrators died, but their accomplices, accessories and co-conspirators still live. Many of the Bush administration’s early actions were consistent with the law and order model. It marshaled a near universal condemnation in the United Nations, NATO and other international forums. The FBI, the CIA and other national and international organizations have undertaken an intensive and far reaching criminal investigation.

Strenuous economic and political efforts have been made to identify and isolate those who participated and supported the criminal acts. The case has apparently been made to the satisfaction of many necessary allies, including the president of Pakistan.

Apprehension of criminals is often the most difficult and dangerous phase in dealing with transgressors. If war is being waged to accomplish this goal, retribution and revenge are acceptable motives and “collateral damage” to innocent men, women and children is expected. In the present situation, war in Afghanistan has the additional, dangerous result of adding hundreds of thousands of new recruits to the extremist camp and undermining moderate and nonviolent Muslims in the struggle for the soul of Islam. War spreads the virulent message of hatred rather than confining and defusing it.

By contrast, if the task is enforcing law and order, the emphasis is on minimal force to achieve precise and clear objectives. While there may be controversial failures, as with the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, governments are challenged to adhere to generally accepted standards of civilized conduct. In this case, identification and publication of the names and pictures of the alleged culprits and the offering of rewards can often have positive results without massive firepower. Close working relations with intelligence services more attuned to Islamic and Arab cultures is essential. It is too soon

to know whether the military action now under way in Afghanistan has fatally compromised the positive law enforcement approach the Bush administration had begun.

If those who aided and abetted this terrible crime are captured a trial is likely. Most U.S. citizens will expect it to be held in the United States, but that might not be possible if the capture results from a deal involving an Islamic or international tribunal. Here is where the United States may deeply regret its foot dragging on the creation of an international criminal court. As for the penalty, there may be near universal call for the death penalty. But a far more severe punishment for such zealots would be to die

of old age in prison, denied martyrdom and an early entry into

Paradise.

Working with the law and order model has the beneficial effect of requiring us to consider motives and ways to prevent future crimes. Law and order has a place for justice tempered with compassion and forgiveness; waging war does not. What works in crime prevention? Looking for early warning signs. Modeling good behavior. Understanding the causes of justifiable grievances. Taking measures to resolve them. And reducing access to weapons. For the United States this could well mean stimulating intensive international efforts to finally resolve the festering Israeli-Palestinian controversy. The U.S. role in spreading arms around the world, which fuel volatile situations, must be addressed.

U.S. reliance on Mideast oil must be reduced by a new sustainable energy policy and a pull back of U.S. troops in the region. The humanitarian disaster in Iraq resulting from U.N. sanctions must be recognized. And the case against multinational corporate domination and exploitation of people in the developing world must be taken seriously.

The United Nations was created in large part “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” The United States’ response to the attacks of Sept. 11

is now determining whether those who died that day are early casualties in a never ending cycle of violence and war in the 21st century or whether they will be recognized as martyrs who helped the world move toward an international system of law and order.

Ed Snyder is executive secretary emeritus of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker), a group he represented on Capitol Hill from 1955-1990. Since retirement he has lived in Bar Harbor.