This war will be won by diplomacy and intelligence, not just by armed might

'Patient justice'

This war will not be like other wars, George Bush said in his address to Congress on Thursday. It is sincerely to be hoped that he means it, because a war, in the literal rather than the metaphorical meaning of the word, is not what the world needs now.

The President gave two specific examples. This war will not be like the war against Iraq in 1990, he said, a war that swiftly reversed the invasion of Kuwait. Nor will it look like the air war above Kosovo, which also achieved its aim relatively quickly, and in that case without Nato either deploying ground troops or incurring combat casualties.

His choice of examples inevitably raised another comparison, however: that of the "half-war" that has been waged against Saddam Hussein ever since Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait. That ought to be the conflict most in the minds of world leaders as they calibrate their response to the horror of 11 September. That, too, was a campaign that was against an enemy personalised in the figure of one man – who was, and is, capable of using weapons of mass destruction – and against a regime notorious for sponsoring terrorism. Although Saddam has been more or less contained for the past decade, United States-British policy towards Iraq can hardly be counted a success.

The question is how to learn the lessons of that half-war and part-success in order to maximise the chances of winning the struggle against Osama bin Laden. One possible lesson would be to wage an all-out war against Mr bin Laden, his associates and the regime that harbours him. That would mean a land war against the Taliban government of Afghanistan, and the prospect does not need to be considered for long before we realise why it is an option advocated by few serious observers. Nor are there, thankfully, many takers for the idea of bombing Kabul or other civilian targets in Afghanistan simply for the sake of discouraging the Taliban from harbouring terrorists in future.

The alternative is to fight a very different kind of war; the kind of war, as President Bush implied, that has never been fought before. Very few democrats – perhaps only rigorous pacifists, whose views can be respected, and political extremists, whose views cannot – would oppose the deployment of special forces in Afghanistan to try to destroy Mr bin Laden's camps and to capture him and his forces. As they are unlikely to come quietly, that in effect means trying to kill them. There may also be military facilities, belonging either to the Taliban or to Mr bin Laden, that can be legitimately attacked from the air.

That part, at least, will seem more like war than mere law enforcement. The main constraint should be, as the President made clear, the avoidance of civilian casualties. "The United States respects the people of Afghanistan," Mr Bush said, "but we condemn the Taliban regime." This is not, therefore, a war against a country. Nor is it even a war against the government of any one country. Mr bin Laden, his al-Qa'ida organisation and the Taliban regime that shelters them are not the only target.

As President Bush said, the organisations that provide the support network for terrorist acts such as the World Trade Centre attack – even if precise operational responsibility for that appalling act is hard to apportion – are spread around as many as 60 countries.

The President's address stands as a thoughtful and eloquent statement about the means and end of this new kind of war – in contrast to his unwise reference to Mr bin Laden being taken "dead or alive" and his ill-judged use of the word crusade. In particular, the President listed the resources that would be deployed in this war in a deliberate order: "Every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and" – last and qualified – "every necessary weapon of war."

If America adheres to that code of restraint, there is a hope that the broad global coalition that the President has assembled will stick together. There should be no doubt that, provided it is fought in accordance with international law, "this is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom". Tony Blair has been right to offer such visible and decisive support to both the US and that coalition.

This a new kind of struggle, neither war nor law enforcement but something in between. It is possible to see at least in Mr Bush's words – though let us wait to see how his actions match up to them – a profound shift in the American attitude towards the concept of international law enforceable by nations acting collectively. In Bosnia and Kosovo, the US and European nations acted without regard for national borders to defend people – mostly Muslims, in fact – from crimes against humanity. In Afghanistan and wherever else suicidal terrorists may hide, the same principles should apply. Is it conceivable that the US might drop its objection to an International Criminal Court, now that its "homeland" is threatened by crimes against humanity too?

This is also a new kind of struggle because it requires diplomacy and intelligence – in both senses of both words. Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's National Security Adviser, said: "It is a war in which information may be the most important asset we have." Better understanding of the cultural soil in which extremist Muslim sects grow is essential, and the signs of a common cause emerging between secular democracies and moderate Islamic nations such as Iran have been encouraging.

Fighting a loose network of terrorists who claim to be religiously inspired is obviously not like fighting a state. Suicide attacks on civilian populations are a new tactic in the history of human degradation. This demands precautionary measures of a degree of seriousness suggested by analogy with wartime. But in the attempt to bring the organisers and ideologues of this kind of terrorism to justice, much of the rhetoric of war is misplaced. And in the attempt to understand the roots of so-called Islamic fundamentalism, and to try to isolate it with the help of mainstream Islamic authorities, talk of war is almost certain to be counter-productive.

The guiding principle of the new kind of campaign against a new kind of terrorism must be, to quote Mr Bush's address once again, to "meet violence with patient justice" – a much better phrase than the foolishly-named Operation Infinite Justice. Let us hear more of those principles in whose name the struggle is being fought, and less of war.