The only way to defeat terrorism is to fight for democracy everywhere—including in Iraq By JOHN MCCAIN

Posted Sunday, September 1, 2002; 3:38 p.m. EST
he attacks of Sept. 11 were an act of war against liberal values and the nation blessed with the resources, courage and faith to champion those values globally. Our enemies have as their cause the spread of a political-religious empire based on a perverted interpretation of Islam that substitutes a lust for violence for a love of peace. They abhor liberty and justice. Their choice of civilian and governmental targets indicates that they understand one essential truth about America—the people rule here, not mullahs or kings or generals or the megalomaniacal son of an oil-rich desert kingdom. They believe that the right of individuals to pursue happiness makes societies weak, and that liberty begets only materialism. Since they were routed from Afghanistan and many of their fighters are dead or in captivity, the magnitude of their misjudgment is evident.

Terrorism's appeal will endure where people have no experience with the fruits of self-government. We cannot counter it by advocating freedom only where it wouldn't unsettle economic and security relationships with undemocratic regimes. Until all the world's remaining despotic regimes—be they profoundly cruel or in some respects more benevolent—are replaced by democratically committed regimes, terrorism will always find new adherents, and the threat to America's security and ideals will persist. Change has come to Afghanistan. It must be protected there. But change must also come to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, the Palestinian Authority and wherever nations are ordered to exalt the few at the expense of the many.

America's voice, as expressed by our government, must be outspoken in support of democratization in all of these countries. The global success of liberty is America's greatest strategic interest as well as its most compelling moral argument. All our other interests are served in that cause. The more countries that are governed with the consent of the governed, the fewer there will be where resentment caused by corrupt rulers can be misdirected toward the U.S.

Change must also come, soon, to Iraq. I share the President's sense of urgency about ending the regime of an often irrational aggressor, a mass murderer who has used chemical weapons on his own soil, persists in violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and is committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. When he does acquire them, containing his aggression will be far more difficult; he will perceive cooperation with terrorists as a lesser risk to himself; and threats to his rule could be the occasion for a savage man's last blaze of infamy.

Though I'm not yet convinced that the large U.S. force contemplated for the operation is the best or only option, the President's war plans will be based on more information than I possess. He should seek congressional support soon—before staging large numbers of troops in advance of hostilities. Although the legal necessity for doing so is arguable, the political imperative is not. Public support, best measured by the extent of congressional support the President receives, is as important as the size and quality of our military force. The President should make his strong case for taking action against Iraq to Congress and the country and provide us with a better understanding of the reasons that guide his decisions. And he should prepare Americans for the potential costs of taking action, in blood and treasure.

Our regional allies who oppose using force against Saddam Hussein warn of uncontrollable popular hostility to an American attack on Iraq. But what would really be the effect on Arab populations of seeing other Arabs liberated from oppression? Far from fighting to the last Iraqi, the people of that tortured society will surely dance on the regime's grave. I wish the Bush Administration and its predecessor had given more serious support to internal and external Iraqi opposition than has been the case. But it's a safe assumption that Iraqis will be grateful to whoever is responsible for securing their freedom. Perhaps that is what truly concerns some of our Gulf War allies: that among the consequences of regime change in Iraq might be a stronger demand for self-determination from their own people.

What ensures our success in this long struggle against terrorism is that our military strength is surpassed only by the strength of our ideals. Our enemies are weaker than we are in men and arms, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express an irrational hatred for all that is good in humanity, a hatred that has fallen time and again to the armies and ideals of the righteous. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. We will never surrender. They will. All we must do is stay true to our faith.