The administration of President George W. Bush was drawn into the Middle East maelstrom by one of the most cataclysmic events in American history when on Sept. 11, 2001, airplanes hijacked by al-Qaida terrorists destroyed New York City’s twin tower complex and struck the Pentagon. Predictably, as 9-11 recedes into the past and as the Campaign of 2004 approaches, a great debate is taking shape over the Bush administration’s response to 9-11 and over its conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

The debate over Iraq overshadows the tremendous success achieved by the United States in Afghanistan where al-Qaida terrorists have been driven from their national sanctuary and established base camps. But the fact is that this administration has moved boldly and swiftly to bolster American security at home and to move against sources of terrorism and instability abroad. The attack refocused U.S. foreign policy onto the multifaceted problems of the Middle East, including terrorism and the challenge of establishing an environment through which long-term stability in the region may be possible.

Many Americans seem to have a curiously naive view of the conduct of foreign policy. There is much talk about the importance of international coalition building; that the United Nations should have a hand in developing and implementing U.S. policy; or that extended negotiation is necessary as a means of avoiding conflict. Many people seem to believe that a proper foreign policy is a benign foreign policy that generates no vocal opposition abroad. Some want our policy-makers to seek international validation and approval before undertaking any potentially controversial measure. They wish to avoid confrontation at all cost, and maddeningly, they believe that any international opposition to American policy is rooted in American failure to understand or consider international points of view. That approach is a certain recipe for failing to act where action is imperative.

The insistence that the United Nations support every aspect of our Iraq policy before we act is a case in point. By its nature, the U.N. is programmed to debate rather than to act. This is particularly true when major blocs are on opposite sides of a difficult question or when nations wish to avoid taking a stand for reasons of self-interest. I spent the fall of 1984 as acting ambassador to the U.N. First Committee that has the responsibility for disarmament issues. The U.S. position was to work for arms reduction agreements consisting of concrete and verifiable measures. The vast majority of First Committee members, most from “nonaligned” states, would only support worthless promises of good behavior devoid of any means to verify or enforce compliance. Thus, nothing of substance was accomplished and the useless posturing continued without end.

This is the same phenomenon that led to the president’s exhortation to the U.N. that it must decide whether it will become a meaningful force for stability in the world, or whether it will allow itself to be marginalized by inaction. Many U.N. hands, and many on the American Left didn’t like it one bit, but the president was right. If the U.N. refuses to enforce its own resolutions regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, then America and its allies must themselves act in their own self-defense.

As uncomfortable as it may be for most Americans to engage in political and military matters in the Middle East, our direct involvement has now become unavoidable and we must not fail. Americans can now clearly see that radical organizations like al-Qaida have the means and the desire to attack Western institutions at home as well as in the Middle East. Western society and Western values are under attack as well as Western political and economic interests. And there are no rules. There are no weapons, no strategies, no outrages or horrors too extreme or too brutal. The killing of 3,000 innocents in New York City is nothing compared to the devastation al-Qaida had intended; and given access to nerve gas, or to nuclear waste, or God forbid, to a nuclear weapon, there are horrors yet possible beyond the imagination of Faust.

Although our attention is usually given to the military aspects of this conflict, there are other aspects that are at least as important. The administration’s strategy is built around the following elements: assuring America’s domestic security; rooting out international terrorists and supporters of terrorism wherever they exist; encouraging and supporting moderate elements throughout the Middle East to create a more stable political, social and economic environment; and working with Israel, and other states, to devise a plan to recognize legitimate Palestinian aspirations in a manner that will guarantee Israel’s long-term security.

Although many grave challenges lie ahead, there are now some encouraging signs that moderation is gaining a cautious foothold in some parts of the Middle East. Libya is now discussing the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction; Syria has indicated that it is again willing to participate in peace talks with Israel; frosty relations between Egypt and Iran are beginning to thaw; Saudi Arabia is easing restrictions on internal policy debate; and there are now signs that relations between Turkey and Syria are improving. As a consequence of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is in the formative stages of building a representative government; and Afghanistan is beginning to function again as a self-governing society. But the Palestinian question is as problematic as ever. Challenges remain ahead with respect to Syria and Iran, both of which are keys to building a stable Middle East. And Saudi Arabia is approaching a crossroad and must decide whether it wishes to become a player in a more moderate and open Middle East, or remain a vestige of its feudal past.

As we face these challenges, Americans should understand that we are not to blame for the chronic Middle East crisis, nor did we deserve the cowardly terrorist attack of 9-11. In that regard, we are as much the victims of extremism as were those victims of Saddam or of the Taliban. It is hard to comprehend that any good could ever come from the tragedy of 9-11, but if there is any such lasting good to be found, it may well be found in the intense international attention and focus now upon the multifaceted problems on the Middle East. Particularly, it may be found in the renewed Western commitment to wage a war against terrorism, repression and extremism. These evils can survive only so long as they are tolerated by those who have the power to eradicate them. The most fitting memorial to the victims of terrorism will be a successful commitment to fight against these evils and to support and nurture the growth of moderation and tolerance throughout the Middle East.

President Bush has dared to act where others would not. He has declared a war on terrorism and he has the overwhelming support of the American people in this endeavor. There is, however, a danger that given our limited attention spans, some Americans may become weary of the war on terror, as if we could or should somehow end this struggle by ourselves before the job is done. This will be a long and costly struggle as the president has said, but it is one that we cannot afford to lose. He is certainly correct that our national interests have been challenged and threatened, and that the threat to us cannot be extinguished by words or by wishes, but only by resolute and continuing action. We are in a long-term struggle that will challenge our strongest national will on many levels. We must not fail.

Former U.S. Rep. David F. Emery lives in Tenants Harbor. He represented Maine’s 1st Congressional District (1975-1983), and served President Ronald Reagan as the deputy director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1983-1988). He is currently president of Scientific Marketing & Analysis, a Maine-based consulting firm specializing in opinion research and public policy. He can be contacted at dfemery@midcoast.com.