Terrorist power today to inflict devastating attacks against innocent civilians is likely to pall before the horrors it will be able to inflict in a decade’s time if terrorist growth goes unchecked.

The non-military options in play – following the money, more diligent police work, and so on – would do little more than raise the inconvenience level for terrorists so long as the training and propaganda camps in Afghanistan continue to turn out martyrs and hate.

The “let’s leave it to the United Nations” option has no meaning. US actions are already fully sanctioned by specific UN resolutions since September 11 and by basic UN resolutions about the right to self-defense, part of the UN intellectual and moral infrastructure from the start.

Statements from the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, and his spokesmen (no need to use spokespersons here), since September 11 should leave even the most hopelessly deluded in no doubt the attacks were launched from Afghanistan under a government-approved terrorist operation. Bin Laden has more than once declared war (or rather holy war) on the United States, urged his soldiers to kill Americans, and killed American along with people from many other nations in a series of well-documented attacks. The right to self-defense is clear.

Perhaps the peace movement wants the United Nations to run the operation. The UN has not the political will, infrastructure, or expertise to manage a sophisticated, long-term campaign. The terrorist training camps would keep on training.

Perhaps the peace movement demands zero military response. That would allow terrorists to escalate attacks, as they have in the past. Terrorists groups are quite explicit. They want to kill as many people as possible, with the goal of destroying democratic civilization. They just might have a chance if they get all the free shots they want from untouchable bases in Afghanistan and any number of other nations if the west adopted a no-strike policy.

Even without military attacks on the terrorists, terrorist attacks could be shut down in the west but we would also have to shut down our open civilization, as we know it. That a stark choice between our way of life and the decision to undertake self-defence.

Some believe a reworking of the Palestinian-US-Israeli relationship could end terrorism. Bin Laden wants the destruction of Israel and a second, modern genocide against Jews. Is this an acceptable price for peace according to the peace movement? They must explain what they mean and its consequences.

Many in the peace movement, especially those from the anti-globalist movement, seem to want an even more radical approach – the complete withdrawal of the US and western trading nations from the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. That would set off a mad, Middle Eastern arms race.

With US restraint removed, Iraq would power up its weapons of mass destruction program. Iraq was dangerously close to building a nuclear warhead prior to the Gulf War and still has the expertise if not the materials.

Kuwait would not be long independent. Other Middle Eastern Nations would have to launch nuclear weapons programs if only in self-defense. Before invading Kuwait, Iraq tried its luck in a bloody invasion of Iran, which is now also close to nuclear capability.

With the US out and Israel desperate for survival, the region would become a nuclear tinderbox, aggravating directly and indirectly the already tense nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan. One badly-timed unfortunate incidence and we really could face a civilization ending nuclear war.

If the peace movement does have ideas and options, it needs to explain what they are, instead – as many of its spokespeople do – of rambling on about global conspiracies which are as loony and almost as hate-filled as anything that comes out of the terrorist camps.

Simply saying “leave it to the United Nations” either reflects dangerous dishonesty or willful self-delusion. Let’s have some details on the alternatives proposed by the peace camp.