Once again - What we learned

By Robert L. Bartley

The American collective memory being notoriously short, it's hard to remember that it's only been two years. Perhaps this week's ceremonies -- and President Bush's speech last night, not yet given as I write -- will revive and implant the lessons we learned on that fateful Sept. 11.

The chattering classes have the shortest of all memories. Just now politicians and pundits have been dissecting the rough patch the U.S. is encountering four months after military victory in Iraq: A guerrilla remnant blowing up targets that have declined American protection, the French and Germans seizing another opportunity to give America the back of their hands at the United Nations, and the Democratic dwarves taking their New Mexico debate as an opportunity to tee off in both English and Spanish.

In the bigger picture, though, Iraq and Sept. 11 are inseparable. I continue to believe it's likely that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the airline hijackings, but lay that aside. No serious observer can believe that we would have invaded Iraq if there had been no hijackings. The blustering of the Saddams of the world were newly relevant once Americans saw how vulnerable they were in a world of terrorism and instant communications.

The Bush administration laid out a considered rationale on how to react to this new world. The president first set it out in his speech to West Point cadets. To repeat the same quotations I used in "What we learned" on the first Sept. 11 anniversary a year ago:

"The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. ... Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger the American people and our nation. The attacks of Sept. the 11th required a few hundred thousand dollars in the hands of a few dozen evil and deluded men. ... [I]f we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. ... Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."

These thoughts were later spelled out in detail in a 31-page White House document, "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The Bush Doctrine provided, and continues to provide, the rationale for the Iraq war.

Saddam Hussein clearly supported terrorism. In a Oct. 2, 2002, letter, CIA Director George Tenet laid out Saddam's links with al-Qaida, but lay that aside. The Iraqi dictator bragged about payments to families of suicide bombers in Israel. Iraq had used chemical weapons in its war with Iran and in suppressing Kurds, and had tried to build nuclear weapons. Saddam's mental state was evident in having started two wars.

This was the essence of the case for pre-emption; it prevailed not only within the administration but by votes of 77-23 in the U.S. Senate and 296-133 in the House. The U.N. passed one resolution citing 16 previous ones, but France and Germany sabotaged the 18th one. So President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair sent forces to topple the Saddam regime.

It's necessary to rehearse this history to keep current concerns in perspective. The lightning coalition attack was not subjected to chemical attack, and so far searchers have uncovered no troves of weapons of mass destruction. The administration clearly underestimated the difficulty of the postwar reconstruction. But in the larger picture, these are mere details. The Sept. 11 attacks are a warning that we have to deal with a new world, and the Bush Doctrine either is or is not the necessary response.

The president's critics are not rising to this challenge. In their debate the other night, the Democratic candidates blathered about his failing to bring along the U.N., meaning the Germans and French. Pundits have drawn a new line in the sand, one casualty a day is too much. But we lost some 3,000 Americans in one day on Sept. 11; our soldiers are in Iraq to prevent that from happening again to our civilians at home.

Remember too, we're in the middle of a battle. In his famous aircraft carrier speech the president declared "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." But he also warned that "difficult work" remained. "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."

In mid-battle, reverses can be expected, but do not necessarily presage the outcome. Our forces can learn to curb guerrilla attacks. Correcting earlier hesitancy, they have summoned some alacrity in building an Iraqi government. In the coming week I would not be surprised if Secretary of State Powell succeeds at the U.N., winning more help from around the world despite the French. Similarly, I would not be surprised if the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas proves to be a step toward the removal of Yasser Arafat.

The Bush Doctrine and the fall of Saddam have created a new world environment. It surfaces problems previously ignored, as we once ignored the threat of terrorism. But once the problems surface we have an opportunity to resolve them. While there's no guarantee we will always succeed, we've also learned that the United States has great power, not only military but moral. And over these last two years since Sept. 11, the naysayers have been consistently wrong.

Robert L. Bartley is the editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal.