[1] The war on terrorism opened a new chapter in U.S. military history, and the debate on strategies used to prosecute this war has just begun.

[2] A review of U.S. military strategy and the forces needed to execute that strategy began shortly after the inauguration of the Bush administration. The review recognized that future conflicts would be very different from the past. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the success of arms control measures, crisis stability had been replaced by regional instability. U.S. forces were likely to be called on in distant places; they would have to be lighter and faster if they were to respond in a timely manner to smaller conflicts. The disaster of 9/11 confirmed the need for smaller, faster, adaptive forces as the focus became the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

[3] In addition to the restructuring of the armed forces, the civilian and military leadership face two practical ethical problems today that emerged after 9/11. Both have ethical considerations that merit debate. The U.S., in actions subsequent to 9/11, declared war against an entity other than a sovereign nation. We are at war against terrorism,"terrorists and those that harbor them" in the president's words. Although our forces have fought in Afghanistan, we are not at war with that country. The current government of Afghanistan generally supports our efforts within their borders. However, if we are to pursue terrorists, wherever they are, and those that harbor them, we could find ourselves in other countries while not at war with those countries. The policy, particularly when forcefully delivered to the joint session of Congress and the American people in the heat of post 9/11, sounded just right. However, the execution of the accompanying strategy will raise many questions. What happens if a country says "no," you may not violate our sovereignty? Does our military go in anyway?"; does "the end justify the means?"

[4] The other ethical problem arises out of the discussion about the possibility of attacking Iraq. The policy of containment may be replaced in this instance by a preemptive declaration of war. Historically, the U.S. has responded to aggression but refrained from preemptive attacks. Nuclear deterrence was successful, in part, because both superpowers considered the other rational and would therefore not initiate an attack. (It should be noted that in today's world, not all those who may obtain nuclear weapons are deemed rational in the same way.) An attack on any NATO ally would have been considered an attack against all, and swift retaliation was promised. The Gulf war of '91 was in response to aggressive military action by Iraq against Kuwait. Unless one considers the war of '91 simply unfinished, the case against Iraq today is quite different. Although there may be a significant threat posed by Iraq's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, there has not been, since 1991, an aggressive act by Iraq that calls for a U.S. response. Thus, a preemptive strike by the U.S. would represent a significant change in U.S. policy. What justification is there for this type of action? What does this signal to other countries that have undesirable leaders and weapons of mass destruction? The discussion, having many dimensions, has just begun.