Re-examining the issues of our years - The Doubled Edge

When many of us started college four years ago, the world's problems seemed nearly resolved. The fall of Communism was succeeded by our own wealth rising. By and large, we were safe. We were free. And we were wrong.

With the collapse of the Camp David II talks the summer before coming to school, new realities began to emerge. Over the last four years, we witnessed events that have ushered in a new age for our country and generation. If our parents had Vietnam, civil rights marches and Watergate to ignite their passions, we had the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the War on Terror and the Bush presidency.

It is these topics that have consumed much of our attention the last four years. But there is no room, nor need, to rehash the myriad events from the last years. Instead, I'll leave you with predictions for those issues that arose during our time at college and will continue to demand our attention for years to come.

It was only weeks after classes began that what seemed like a stable world began to change. In September of 2000 the Intifada that Yasser Arafat had been planning started. Thousands of threats, protests and bombings later, the conflict continues.

But after more than three years in the doldrums of violence, there seems to be a change in the wind. Israel's decision to unilaterally disengage from areas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank has given hope that while the conflict may not be over, Israel's constant oversight of Palestinians' lives may be drawing to a close. Expect the military campaign against Hamas and other terror organizations to continue until the proposed withdrawal. The security barrier will also be completed. But for all their threats and insinuations, Israel remains unlikely to target Arafat. While not from a lack of desire to eliminate the man responsible for hundreds of Israeli deaths and maiming thousands, the results may just be too unpredictable to warrant an attack.

Yet Israel is wise to externalize their threat. It provides moral legitimacy to their war and works to preserve the Jewish democracy. It's unlikely that a majority of the Quartet arbiters including the United Nations, the European Union or Russia will support such moves, but with staunch backing from the U.S., led either by President Bush or Senator John Kerry, Israel will begin its disengagement and liberation from the Palestinian quagmire that has plagued it for nearly 40 years; or, at least until a truly viable new negotiator emerges.

One year after the collapse of peace in Israel, the events of Sept. 11 changed our country and precipitated Bush's metamorphosis. With first the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and later the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the War on Terror has been, by some measures, a success. But when gauged against the crucible of instability it has created in both countries, the world's loss of faith in America and the cost in American lives associated with what is increasingly obvious was a war of choice, our victory is much more dubious.

There should, however, be little doubt that the doctrine of preemption is necessary. Indeed it will be the policy of the U.S. for many administrations to come. The main question that remains is how it will be enforced by future presidents.

If Kerry wins the election in November, he will try to build a broad-based coalition to increase international prestige and defray the cost of our overseas projects. If, on the other hand, Mr. Bush is reelected, our already stretched forces will be spread even further. In what will be seen as a solid mandate to continue his current policies, the president will look to engage other non-compliant nations militarily - or at least expand current projects, with sacrifices finally being asked of many Americans. And while Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has argued against their impact in the past, a new draft does not seem as unthinkable as it did when we registered for Selective Service four years ago.

The common factor behind all these conflicts is President Bush himself. Nearly universally disdained abroad and utterly divisive at home, Bush has carried forward his ideological agenda from his first days in office. Even as he assumed the presidency with an at best nebulous mandate, he has forged a vision of what role he views the U.S. will play in the new global conflict.

But will this vision - which Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward and others seem to say is more a mirage - be enough to carry the election this fall? Much of it, of course, depends. What seems strange, though, is that Bush has built a case for his reelection on the premise that he has made America safer. But curiously, some polls suggest more Americans would vote for Bush if there were another terrorist attack.

Even so, Kerry has a chance. The economy is still struggling and many are still jobless. In this model, though, it seems as if both candidates must hope for failure if they are to see any success. And that's before Ralph Nader joined the fray.

So it does seem probable that four years from now, Bush will be leading America in the War on Terror while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a concern and an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Then again, perhaps in fours years we will be awaiting a different Kerry-Bush election.

David Leiman, former editor of the Opinions page, is graduating Phi Beta Kappa in May.