MORE THAN FLAG-WAVING

Almost all of America now drapes itself in red, white and blue, embracing the outward symbols of our national identity. But true patriotism requires a level of commitment and sacrifice that runs far deeper than these outward symbols. The war we now face will be different than any the world has ever seen. It will require sacrifices on the magnitude of World War II. Before this conflict ends, we will see more death and destruction inflicted on us, more innocence destroyed.

My generation has never felt the pain of a protracted conflict. We have seen war, but only through the lens of CNN in places like Kuwait and Panama. Even in Somalia, we watched from afar. We do not know the hardships we are about to face. In many respects, the best parallel to draw is with Pearl Harbor. Our innocence resembles the innocence of that generation. High school seniors and college students today must feel the same emotions that students felt in 1941. Will we fight? Will they call me? Will I go? Will I die?

Patriotism is important. We must all come together to rally behind those who have lost loved ones, behind our leaders and our cause. But we must remember that empty symbolism and gestures of patriotism are not enough. It will require tremendous sacrifice from all of us.

GLOBAL INFORMATION NETWORKS

Our government is living in the pre-Internet world of national defense, but the terrorists of Sept. 11 were not. They were not being harbored by a single evil country; they were living all over the world and communicating by e-mail. They were buying their airline tickets on the Internet. Their major commodity was information.

Our defensive responses concentrate neither on information nor the globe. Instead, our defenses focus on weapons, the knives and box cutters the terrorists used. Instead of focusing on the global locations of the terrorists, our government desperately tries to find a single nation-state to hold accountable.

Only methods for identifying potential terrorists around the world, for intercepting the information exchanges of terrorist groups and for translating this intelligence into preventative action can prevent terrorism. We need intelligence experts who speak Arabic and other languages; infiltration into international terrorist networks that transcend particular nation-states; and an understanding of the psychology, sociology and anthropology of terrorism.

This can't be accomplished by military action. It can only be accomplished by having global information networks more powerful than those of potential terrorists. Because war stops the free flow of global information, it will make the crucial task of defending against terrorism impossibly difficult.

THE THREAT OF BIOTERRORISM

An announced threat or recognized bioterrorism attack in a public setting is far easier to deal with than a covert attack. A covert attack, such as quietly spraying a public place or sending a contaminated letter, will essentially go unnoticed until the medical community recognizes there has been a rise in the number of cases of unusual diseases, such as anthrax. Victims would go to emergency rooms or emergency medical personnel as 911 calls. Because many agents of bioterrorism, like anthrax or smallpox, have relatively long incubation periods, it's sometimes difficult initially to recognize an event as bioterrorism.

What can individuals do to protect themselves? Should they stockpile antibiotics? Buy gas masks? Install anti-bacterial filters in air-conditioning systems? In almost all cases, the answer is no. If people were exposed to a covert attack, how would they know when to put on a gas mask? Would it work on bacterial agents, anyway? With cold and flu season fast approaching, how would one differentiate between the typical symptoms of these illnesses and those of anthrax? Inappropriate antibiotic usage would, more likely than not, just confuse the diagnostic picture and potentially cause harm.

The proper response to bioterrorism rests with law enforcement and public health communities. Law enforcement needs to continue to be vigilant, and public health organizations need to expand disease surveillance to be able to react quickly and treat those infected appropriately. If there is anything positive about the recent anthrax events, it is that the health-care community is now including anthrax infections as part of its differential diagnosis.

A RE-EXAMINATION OF ATTITUDES

The events of Sept. 11 and the rhetoric of government officials in the days since have exposed a great threat to our safety: When it comes to foreign policy and America's role in the world, we are rarely a true democracy; we rarely even have much idea of what is going on. This veil of ignorance has contributed, in no small part, to these recent ghastly events. If we are to prevent a repetition of them, we as citizens must reclaim some authority over our role in the world and not simply endorse a "war on terrorism."

Simple justice and morality demand that we regard the acts of terrorists and their accomplices as evil, irredeemable deeds, and that we tirelessly seek justice for their victims. But our revulsion and our determination to bring evildoers to justice do not require us to abandon the search for the larger causes of such deeds. Sheer pragmatism, not to say the desire for self-preservation, requires that we do all we can to prevent a repetition of these events.

Such a pragmatic imperative is not adequately served simply by beefing up our intelligence capabilities or by retaliating with military or economic violence. If widespread hatred of the United States is the seedbed of terrorist acts, we would do well to reflect on the roots of that hatred. Understanding it does not require that we ratify it or accede to its fantastic and coercive manifestations, or refrain from passing judgment on it. It does, however, require that we pause to examine how U.S. policies and attitudes helped make the world we now regard with fear and revulsion.

FEAR AND THE ECONOMY

As America engages in the war against terrorism, the biggest threat to our economy is excessive fear rather than any real economic fallout from the Sept. 11 attacks. The country has been moving into a recession for the past two quarters, led by a collapse in information technology investments. Much of the recent economic bad news is being incorrectly attributed to the attacks rather than this recession. Will the Sept. 11 attacks and subsequent war make it worse? All the evidence we've looked at says it should not.

Historically, the only modern war linked to an economic slide was the Gulf War. That downturn, however, was due to an oil shock — the price per barrel almost tripled — rather than a decline in consumer confidence as has been hypothesized. Neither the Vietnam nor Korean wars had any real impact on consumer spending and may have actually worked to improve the economy through large increases in government spending. Similarly, past terrorist acts here in the United States cannot be linked to any substantial change in consumption behavior or economic downturns.

The way the government handles our legitimate need for more security can make the economic effects worse than they need be by making us fearful, rather than just wary. If the rhetoric of war brought home does indeed sink in, it may act to discourage consumers from spending or traveling. Then we will find ourselves living out a self-fulfilling prophesy with more serious economic consequences than anything the terrorists could have created with a single attack.

THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

The war on terrorism must begin by battling bureaucracy. In the federal government, 46 different departments and agencies have a hand in counter-terrorism policy. These executive-branch organizations are overseen by an equally fragmented Congress. Who is in charge? The answer is: everyone. And no one.

President Bush has taken a critical first step by appointing Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to head the new Office of Homeland Security. In the days ahead, the president must ensure that Gov. Ridge has the powerful levers to knock bureaucratic heads together. This will not be easy. Government agencies are not designed to change; they are designed to perform routine tasks in standard ways. Just ask the Army, which kept a horse cavalry until World War II. To succeed, Gov. Ridge will need three things: the ear of the president; budgetary authority to set counter-terrorism priorities and reward agencies who follow them; and the maximum power possible to hire and fire.

Ridge cannot work alone. The intelligence community is in dire need of overhaul. Priority No. 1 should be to give the CIA director greater authority to manage the far-flung intelligence community. Although the director is supposed to set broad intelligence strategy and determine how best to allocate intelligence resources, he controls less than 15% of the intelligence budget and has only limited authority over the 12 intelligence agencies outside the CIA. Quantum improvements in intelligence will come only by empowering the director to match resources against priorities in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion.

Organizational reform is not glamorous, and it is not easy. But it is critical. The window of opportunity is here. The Bush administration and Congress need to seize it.