"This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."
After President Bush made this statement to the press on Monday, the reaction he received was beyond his expectations.
Muslims at home and abroad condemned the use of the word "crusade." Much of the criticism is based on its historical implications; the Crusades were a series of disastrous holy wars that killed millions of Muslims. Others contend that it is impermissible for Bush to even compare his planned counterattack to a religious struggle.
Some critics in the press charge that such attention to detail is nitpicking, and tears at the unity we should build behind the president in a national crisis. They demand the focus be shifted toward his actual policies.
Actions undoubtedly speak louder than words. But words are the only way the president can communicate what his actions will be to the public. As the head of our state, the president is the main voice Americans listen to in order to understand what the nation's next step will be, not to mention their own. Hearing Bush's words spoken on television also projects a message with a living force more powerful than that of any written policy.
But in the days since the tragedy, some of the messages Bush has presented to the press appear to be in conflict with one another or poorly planned. The "crusade" incident cannot be dusted off as an innocent mistake. In a time when tense relations exist with Muslims here and around the world, every single word matters. Bush can't simply visit a mosque one day to appease the Muslims, and on the next day call for a holy war. At best, the message is confusing, and at worst, it makes people wary of his policies while heightening global frustration. It appears as if we are imitating our enemies, who first justified the notion of a religious war through a perverted interpretation of Islamic principles.
The depths of the military conflict ahead are also questionable. Before Wednesday, Bush appeared heated in his talk of an all-out war designed to bring to "justice" to every terrorist and anyone who harbors them. After receiving foreign criticism, the president, on Tuesday, completely omitted the use of the word "war," and referred to the conflict ahead as "a series of battles." By then, it was too late, as both major media organizations and the public had irrevocably attached the term to the "battles" we now face.
To further confuse the issue, members of Bush's administration are also divided in their assessments of the war's scope. One advisor reported that America's upcoming military conflict plans to eliminate states that sponsor terrorism. Later, this was clarified to mean the end of general state sponsorship of terrorism.
Hedging on the issue confuses the nation on what the right policy is, and also what attitude its people should take. In the past few days, Bush has backed down from stronger rhetoric that demands Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," and that the terrorists be "smoked out of their holes." But in a time of war, strong leadership is needed. The latter statements, at least, are more preferable to ones in which Bush refers to the terrorists as "folks."
Most of the people in this country have never before experienced anything like the effects of these attacks. Our generation is the first to experience the horrifying effects of modern terrorism, and the United States is making the first large-scale stand against it. In this situation, we need a clear, consistent message from our president so neither we nor the rest of the world is confused as to what exactly our stance is.
