ROY EDROSO

The page 6-7 headline in the October 15 New York Post reads, "BUSH: NO ONE'S SAFE FROM EVIL." This puts in the President's mouth an uncharacteristic, but telling, philosophical idea.

Whatever we choose to call the multifarious forces behind the many recent bombings--"Terror" (as in "War on"), "Al Qaeda," or the "Axis of Evil"--it is safe to say that the shadowy nature of their instigators and operatives has spread a miasma of fear. The premature attempts of some parties to link the DC-area shootings to Al Qaeda (see the previous Crank Watch) reflect this state of mind.

We are so beset by horrors that we are increasingly driven to call them all by one name. But "Al Qaeda" is ultimately too limiting. We don't even know if bin Laden is dead or alive, and with all the talk of sleeper cells, that terror network seems too widely distributed to comprise a single, earthly, root cause that could be weeded out in one stroke. The Axis of World War II ceased to exist when we beat its leaders, but no one believes that the defeat of Iraq (or its A of E brethren) will end the current mayhem. (In the same NY Post, an op-ed states, incoherently but evocatively, that "the war that is being fought with militant Islam"--another name!--"means dealing with the unnerving future of a permanent war until one side is defeated.")

There are so many terrorist groups at work--several are listed at this very useful site, run by the Council on Foreign Relations--that tying them all together requires a leap out of the sphere of the geopolitical, and into that of the cosmological.

So, "Evil" is a fair choice. It suggests malefaction beyond temporal authority, a force needing no supervision to wreak its havoc upon the world. Perhaps "Satan" would be even better; it was a winner for the Catholic Church for centuries (and would certainly get the approval of Peggy Noonan).

Or how about "Anarchy"? As described in Barbara Tuchman's excellent "The Proud Tower," self-professed anarchists caused much mayhem throughout Europe in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, and while individual perps were easily caught, the force behind them was every bit as elusive as our current nemesis. ("Nemesis" isn't bad either, but that it sounds like a comic book villain.) Of course, this would present a problem for modern-day anarcho-syndicalist types, who have no known connection with the bombings and shootings, and it would ruin a wonderful Sex Pistols song. Plus, it begs a question: Didn't Anarchism subside without a far-reaching War on Anarchy?

One thing is certain: As difficult as the dismantling of Al Qaeda proves to be, it will be much more difficult to wipe out Evil. And wipe it out we must, as, clearly, no one is in the mood to pursue the containment strategy that served the civilized world in prior ages. This is a fight to the death--permanent, as the Post writers put it, until someone is defeated. What the cost of that defeat will be, not even op-ed authors can say.