The president has declared the death and destruction wreaked on Manhattan and the Pentagon as an act of war against the United States, and, for all practical purposes, has declared war on terrorism. His assessment of the situation is correct, and he has warned that countries harboring or aiding terrorists will suffer consequences. The president has acted decisively, swiftly, and presidentially. Great political leaders do not shrink from the challenges of war and peace decisions in the name of some noble pacifism. They recognize evil for what it is, and make the sacrifices it takes to annihilate it. In this disaster, we are fortunate that the people at the helm are not the dissemblers, political hacks, and other juveniles of past years.

It is fitting that we did not hear much about unambiguously identifying those directly responsible for the deeds to bring them to justice. Acts of war are not justiciable. The only acceptable response to acts of war is war, and that war must end only with the death and destruction of an enemy that hates us and will not relent. The time has come to junk legalistic postures, symbolic resolutions, timid diplomacy, halfhearted economic sanctions, and other ineffectual tergiversations.

So, we are at war, and this is no simple matter. At a press conference, a journalist asked Colin Powell about our concern over possible "collateral damage." Gen. Powell did not give a very clear answer, and that goes to his credit. Collateral damage should be our least concern. Let me explain this position. There exist training camps for terrorists in Pakistan. This alone is an act of war against the countries targeted by the terrorists. To hold the Pakistani head of state or the leader of this or that faction solely responsible looks noble and legalistic enough, but is entirely delusory. The country and its people are responsible. For years, the average Pakistani has gone about his own business unconcerned about the evil engineered on his soil, if not sympathetic to it. Such a lack of concern should not insulate him from painful consequences. When he ordered the raid on Libya that was criticized for its "collateral damage," President Reagan made the right decision. Yes, Gadhafi's daughter and other "innocents" died in the bombing, but sponsors of terrorism should be well aware that such circumstances, however unintended, come with the territory, and we should not make any apology for them.

We received from European countries pious statements of condolences and assurances of solidarity. This is all good, but let us wait to see if actions will follow these words. Since the end of World War Two, Europeans now and then took rather ambiguous positions concerning terrorists residing on their land but not representing a direct threat to them. They have also sold arms to countries hostile to us. That their underhand anti-Americanism may have played a part in these policies is just despicable. Remember that Mr. Mitterrand forbade the use of the French airspace in our raid against Libya, which stretched our planes' range to its limits. Fortunately, in recent years, France, Germany, and other countries have implemented anti-terrorist measures that indicate a newfound resolve. Let us hope this resolve will apply to threats directed at the United States, but without too much optimism.

As I write these lines, Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick are calling upon our government to enact a declaration of war. Congressman Bob Barr wants the foolish 1975 executive order that bans the assassination of foreign leaders under any circumstances to be rescinded. In times of global terrorism, there is no place for the feel-good posturing engendered by post-Viet-Nam sensibilities. Now, assuming that these formalities are behind us, what should we do?

First, we must reform an INS that has become deeply damaged. It turns out that some of the hijackers had obtained visas of entry without proper investigation. At least one was identified as having participated in an act of terrorism in Israel. Immigration used to be considered a matter of national security, and rightly so. Somehow, this facet has faded under political pressures. Irresponsible legislations and demagogic activisms bent on representing selectivity as jingoism or racism have succeeded in twisting immigration laws into some amorphous gooey mush. We are under no obligation to take in anyone who wishes to immigrate. I am tired of hearing proponents of quasi-open borders invoke the words engraved in the Statue of Liberty. These words, however moving they may be, are poetry, not immigration law, and national security is too serious a matter to be governed by feelings.

Doris Meissmer, head of the INS in the previous administration, has largely contributed to the demise of her agency. She came to the job from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with an agenda. The deluge of illegal entries at our borders is but a result of her dismantling the interior enforcement of immigration laws. Under her stewardship, the INS became little more than an agency entirely devoted to the service of would-be-immigrants, whom she called her "clients." She presided over massive, unchecked admissions and naturalizations, which let in countless undesirables and criminals. Such policies, predictably, may have substantially contributed to terrorist infiltration.

So, restoring the INS to a functional state in the service of our country is a high priority, and if this requires the annulment of laws enacted for political motives contrary to our national security, let us put the pressure on the Congress to do it. We need proper scrutiny of would-be immigrants---including refugees---and if there are more applications than the service can handle, let it suspend admissions accordingly. In addition, the volume and selection of admissions should be based on national interests, and not on foreigners' aspirations. For example, preferences accorded under the banner of "family reunification" have led to absurd abuses that in some cases turned this country into an international welfare agency. Finally, every effort must made to secure our borders and the interior enforcement of immigration laws.

Second, our intelligence organizations must be rebuilt to former strength and more. It appears that, by lack of resources, the FBI has somewhat given up on the surveillance and investigation of resident aliens---"green card" holders and lesser categories---who, by behavior, association, or other pertinent consideration should be suspected of subversive activities. Controversies about profiling, spurious concerns about civil liberties---more on that later---and other nonsense are not to interfere with the re-establishment of this mission. Our CIA human intelligence network, foolishly dismantled some twenty-five years ago and subjected to silly constraints---e.g., a Toricelli law forbidding the use of criminals---has to be reconstructed. This will take a long time and much work, but it is worth it. While we can learn much from satellite observation---can we really read a license plate from that far?---it cannot replace agents on the ground. In addition, FBI and CIA must set aside questions of turf and work hand in hand. Finally, as proposed by Congressman Barr, it is time to rescind the 1975 executive order forbidding the assassination of foreign leaders. There are circumstances where a few bullets in the right spots at the right times can help prevent much worse mayhem and destruction.

Adequate funding of our intelligence organizations rests on the Congress, which has been remarkably remiss in this respect. Although national security is a constitutional duty of the state, congressmen have consistently placed a higher priority on pork spending, including social programs. I guess it is easier to be re-elected by bragging about getting federal funds for a new highway or for subsidies to a local business than by having increased the budgets of the FBI or the CIA.

Some of the above measures will undoubtedly raise vociferous objections on the part of those who like to call themselves civil libertarians or do whatever they can to gum up the works of capitalism. The surveillance of resident aliens in no way infringes upon American citizens' liberties. A lot of people, including television talking heads and political pundits, do not know that a resident alien does not have the same rights as a citizen. Nevertheless, some activists---was it in California?---a few years ago demanded that resident aliens be granted a right to vote in local elections, under the excuse that they paid their taxes. The silliness of such demands did not seem to make an impression on a sympathetic segment of the population, which appeared incredibly confused about the meanings and implications of immigration status and citizenship. This is not too surprising, given the short shrift accorded to civics in our schools.

In cases of war, it used to be that citizens of hostile countries who legally resided in the United States were classified as "enemy aliens," which tagged them as potential risks to our national security. During World War Two, those who lived in areas strategically sensitive---e.g., the West Coast---were given the choice to go back to their country of birth, or to move out of areas of strategic sensitivity, or to be assigned to interment camps. This sort of procedure has deeply offended our modern sensitivities and whipped up a storm of criticisms. What was wrong with it is not that Japanese nationals were neutralized, but that no distinction was made between Japanese nationals and American citizens of Japanese ancestry in the case of the internment camps. The "enemy alien" classification should be useful for purposes of surveillance and investigation in the war against terrorism. It is instructive to take a look at the masses of foreign nationals employed in our universities and strategic industries. How many of those can reasonably be thought of as future "enemy aliens"?

One of the most complicated aspects of this war is the web of interconnection among friends and foes, religious chasms among friends and foes, and oil. Assuming that the NATO countries, Russia, and others form a durable coalition, the Middle East and adjacent countries pose a series of nontrivial problems. Afghanistan is practically controlled by the Taliban movement (foe), an extremist Islamic segment of the Wahabi strain---itself a subset of the Sunnite faction---that is bent on killing anyone who does not adhere to its tenets. That includes Non-Muslims and Shiites as well. We are their enemy. But the leaders of Saudi Arabia (friends?) are sympathetic to the Taliban. The United Arab Emirates (friend and foe?) also support the Taliban. Osama bin Laden, one of our worst foes, who enjoys the support of the Taliban, has been building a worlwide terrorist organization for the past twelve years and may have "sleepers" in as many as fifty countries. The future of Pakistan (foe) is tied to the Centgas pipeline across Afghanistan, a venture in which Saudi Arabia is the principal backer after UNOCAL's withdrawl. Pakistan is also under a domestic threat from Taliban supporters. Flows of money, much of which generated by oil, travel along the lines of interconnections. And then, Iraq and Iran have their own terrorist networks, along with Syria. Syria, however, may limit its activities to the Middle East. Finally, the Taliban extends its ring of followers to Sudan, Yemen, Egypt, and as far as Algeria, which can furnish properly fanaticized executors.

Oil prominently figures at the center of the web. On the one hand, the oil we import from Saudi Arabia and the UAE gives these countries a means to impact our economic and strategic capabilities, and thus our international policies. But this dependence works both ways. Cutting off the supply of oil from the Middle East to the US would deprive the producers of a profitable source of revenue, and affect, however in a delayed fashion, the support of terrorism. To parry an oil shortage, it is urgent to develop domestic resources and to step up exploration. Environmentalists and their supporters in Washington should realize that the ecological impact of war and terrorism can be of a scale much larger than the exploitation of oilfields at home. I do not think that they will, as environmentalism has become a cover for marxists and other bankrupt utopians whose objective is to disrupt our economic system.

Finally, there is the thorniest problem of all, Israel. The much touted "peace process" has been at best a series of negotiations between two deaf parties. We must face that the creation of the Jewish state so far has been a failure, and that no one has any idea on how to change this situation other than with schemes that have little bearing on reality. Generation after generation, Palestinian hate has been ratcheted to ever-higher levels in a war that will end only with the complete eradication of one of the adversaries. Israel is in the worse position, as a hypothetical annihilation of the Palestinians would not signal the end of a conflict that has taken in some quarters the dimensions of a jihad.

A war on terrorism will be total, and requires that we conduct it on all fronts, diplomatic, economic, financial (where are bin Laden's assets?), military, and covert actions. It will take time, patience, resilience, and resolve. Are we willing to make the necessary sacrifices? I hope we are.