Maine’s retired senator and active diplomat, George Mitchell, is a specialist in intractable conflicts. After pointing the way toward settlements in Ireland and the Middle East, he has turned his attention to the current trouble between the United States and an extremist Islamic terrorist network. His ideas are worth considering.

In an interview broadcast by Maine Public Radio, Fred Bever asked a pointed question. He quoted Sen. Mitchell’s own words, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “Death and destruction will not bring peace, but will deepen the hatred and harden the resolve on both sides. There is only one way to peace, justice and security in the Middle East, and that is through negotiation.” Bever asked if there was a lesson in that statement for the present terrorism conflict.

Sen. Mitchell’s response: “No, there is not. The words, as you correctly pointed out, were specifically addressed to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I believe those words still to be true. But just because, in most cases, the best approach is peaceful negotiation, does not mean that that’s true in all cases. There are times – there have been in the past and there will be in the future – when the use of military force is justified, to protect our citizens and to defend our interests and our freedoms. I don’t know of a single American – at least none that I’ve ever read or ever heard of – that it was a mistake for us to oppose Nazism and Hitler’s maniacal demands in the second world war. And right now I think that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there can be some kind of reasonable negotiation with bin Laden and the groups which he heads.

“To have negotiations, there must be, at the minimum, some identifiable political demand, identifiable and overt and available for discussion entities – either governments or groups that are willing to talk to try to achieve their demands. That exists in the Middle East. It exists in Northern Ireland. It existed in the Balkans. That does not exist in this case. And so I believe that one must be prepared to make difficult but necessary judgments. And one of them is that, in order to enjoy freedom, individuals and societies must be prepared to fight to defend it and to die for it on some occasions and that the use of military force is, in some circumstances, justified. And I believe this to be one such circumstance.”

The interviewer followed up by asking, “How do you measure that, against the risk of radicalizing more people in the Middle East and perpetuating a cycle of violence?”

Sen. Mitchell: “That is a difficult measure to make. And that demonstrates the validity of what I said earlier, that there is no course that is free of risk. But I would say to you that in my judgment, were we not to respond, were we not to take any action whatsoever, were we to accept the argument that the use of force is not and can never be justified, I believe that we would, in so doing, create the impression of such physical and moral weakness on the part of the United States that it would have the effect of encouraging bin Laden and groups of that type. That also is an impossible thing to measure precisely. You never know what there is, on a road not taken. But I do think in this instance that’s justified.

“Now, the only member of Congress who voted against the use of force justified her vote because she said, “I’m not convinced that using military force will guarantee that there will be no further attacks against us.” Of course, she’s right. There is no such guarantee, and there can be no such guarantee. But that analysis is incomplete. If you look at the long record of attacks – this isn’t the first attack; the word ‘new’ is used over and over again, but there’s nothing new about the attacks; the only thing that’s new is in our response – if you look at the statements, oral and written, of bin Laden himself and members of his leadership, you can reach only one conclusion: that there will be more attacks against the United States and against Americans, no matter what we do. And I believe, therefore, that in that circumstance the relevant question is: What can we do to minimize the likelihood of those attacks occurring and, when they do occur, to minimize their effectiveness. In those circumstances, I believe that common sense and rational self-defense lead you to conclude that we can reduce the likelihood of attacks and reduce their effectiveness if we aggressively seek out, try to locate, disrupt, interdict and destroy those groups who are committed to the killing of Americans.”

These words are all the more effective because they come from a respected leader who has worked hard to promote peace yet sees the need to do the seemingly contradictory thing of fighting for it. It is a difficult conclusion for someone who has worked hard to avoid continued violence, but it is inescapable given the circumstances of Sept. 11.