Since the tragedy of Sept. 11, the United States has embarked on a broad war to fight global terrorism. Almost immediately, the Bush administration fingered Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda as the villains.

President Bush announced the United States and its coalition of allies would find and punish all of the terrorists responsible. To help with the new “War on Terrorism,” the U.S. State Department’s annual list of terrorists would be used to eliminate all “terrorist organizations.”

Near the top of the U.S. State Department list is the Lebanese group Hezbollah. After the Sept. 11 attacks, it became U.S. policy to hunt down and punish organizations on the terrorist list, including Hezbollah. Countries “harboring” terrorist groups were demanded to be either on the side of the United States or on the side of the terrorists.

There was no middle ground. Since Lebanon is the country in which Hezbollah operates, and because of a new American policy regarding nations with “terrorist” organizations, Lebanon came under U.S. scrutiny. The Bush administration flexed economic muscle against the Lebanese government, threatening economic sanctions. But sanctions have not been employed, nor has there been any recent threat to the Lebanesegovernment.

The question that remains is, “If Hezbollah is such a threat to the United States and American citizens, why has the Bush administration done so little to punish them?” Surprisingly, the answer is simply that Hezbollah in no way poses a threat to America. The Bush administration knows this and prudently chooses a more conciliatory stance toward Beirut. Yet, for political reasons, the rhetoric about Hezbollah “terrorists” continues to come from President Bush and his staff.

The truth is since the early 1990s, Hezbollah has been careful to cultivate a new image for its organization and activities. Hezbollah guerillas would rather be seen as resistance fighters than terrorists, and their activities have changed accordingly. Its transformation must be seen in the context of the almost two-decade-long Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon.

During this time, most Hezbollah activities targeted Israeli military personnel in Lebanese territory. Since Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah has taken on a tit-for-tat policy toward Israel.

Another important thing to note is Hezbollah’s success in municipal and parliamentary elections. Hezbollah is one of the largest political blocs in Lebanon and actively participates in democratic processes. In fact, it is because of Hezbollah’s transformation into a political party that the group has needed to change its image. Terrorists are not popular with Lebanese voters.

It is probable that Hezbollah was responsible for major terrorist attacks against Americans in the 1980s, but the Hezbollah of today is an entirely different political reality. President Bush chooses not to confront the group for now, but the anti-Hezbollah rhetoric continues. We must ask ourselves about the nature of the “War on Terror.”

How much of it is just rhetoric about relative non-threats like Hezbollah, and how much of it is about real terrorists?

Trevor Kidd is a history senior from Pueblo, Colo.