9-25-01, By Mike Miller

I waited several days after the attack to walk to the bookshelf for the half-inch bound government report that leads off with these 11-year-old words: "National will and the moral courage to exercise it are the ultimate means for defeating terrorism."

As a ghostwriter, I crafted those words. They were handed to then-President George Herbert Walker Bush on May 15, 1990, as the opening sentence of the executive summary of the report of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism.

That was the commission appointed to investigate the Dec. 21, 1988, terrorist bombing that blew apart Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, raining the 259 persons aboard to their deaths and killing 11 more on the ground. I served as editor of the report.

The clarity and prophetic nature of the commission's findings and recommendations, particularly the strong influence of its chairman, Ann McLaughlin, are striking - even to me - in the wake of recent events. For the report's following sentences recommended:

* "A more vigorous policy that not only pursues and punishes terrorists but also makes state sponsors of terrorism pay a price for their actions."

* "Planning and training for pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes against known terrorist enclaves in nations that harbor them."

* "Where such direct strikes are inappropriate, ... a lesser option, including covert operations, to prevent, disrupt or respond to terrorists acts."

* Actions with other nations to "isolate politically, diplomatically and militarily the handful of outlaw nations sponsoring terrorism."

Thus, the 11-year old report reads today like a script for plans and options being weighed by President George W. Bush and his national security team.

And it is time. For the national will and courage are now overwhelmingly evident for the United States to defeat terrorism.

My purpose is not to point a finger of blame for the fact that these recommended policies were not implemented earlier; rather to reinforce with a brief personal and historical perspective the war-era blueprint the nation now appears destined to follow.

I have read with interest this past week a listing of a number of governmental commissions, one headed by former Vice President Al Gore, which have studied the terrorist threat since that time. However, none came as early with the clairvoyance of the 1990 report.

In addition to Chairman McLaughlin, other members of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism were then-Sens. Alfonse D'Amato of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Congressmen John Paul Hammerschmidt of Arkansas and James L. Oberstar of Minnesota, retired Air Force Gen. Thomas Richards and former Navy Secretary Edward Hidalgo.

The commission also found the nation's aviation security system to be "seriously flawed" and recommended scores of measures to fix it. While many of these measures have since been implemented, the system showed its continuing vulnerability on Sept. 11.

I recall some cynicism and even opposition within the commission and its staff to Chairman McLaughlin's determination to emphasize national will at home and a no-sanctuaries position in the world to combat the terrorist menace. Some said the commission should stick to a more limited and technical examination of the Lockerbie disaster, leaving foreign and national security policy to others.

I also recall McLaughlin's strong direction to me to draft the report's executive summary by balancing the emphasis on national will and the moral courage to use it with the commission's blistering indictment of the "disturbing story" of the nation's aviation security system. After review by the members, this portion of the report emerged intact, almost verbatim the words I had written.

In a separate section on "National Will," which I edited but did not write, the report stated: "The free world has been lurching from terrorist attack to terrorist attack, attempting to agree on how to respond to each event. This approach will not work."

Our report was well received in the media and the government, including by then-President Bush. Why, then, have we as a nation never effectively taken the recommended steps to diplomatically isolate nations that foster terrorism and to mount pre-emptive strikes on terrorist bases?

I believe there is a very obvious and valid reason. Neither Congress nor the public would have supported such direct military strikes or clandestine military operations in the domestic political and world diplomatic climate as then existed.

Until Sept. 11.