TRYING TO FIGHT A 'CIVIL' WAR.

Byline: Joseph Honig Local View

WE live in dangerous and alarming times: Fighter jets provide World Series air cover. NATO command planes crisscross the United States to warn our own military of impending attacks. And legions of healthy Americans hungrily grab drugs for a disease that has claimed four lives out of 270 million.

But perhaps most surprising is that our 21st century war - this war against terrorism - is the first politically correct use of deadly force. It feels strange. It feels awkward. It is suddenly bad form to demonize our enemies beyond the bounds of social propriety.

We have arrived at a time when, for better or worse, you don't dare insult some of the people you want to kill.

Even the Society of Professional Journalists urges members ``to take steps against racial profiling'' in their coverage of the war on terrorism. This esteemed organization has, somewhat astonishingly, asked editors and reporters to mention terrorists of every stripe - racists, certain anti-abortion groups and others - when printing news of murderous Islamic extremists.

As if there's a danger of offending decent Americans of any ethnicity. As if most of us aren't smart enough to know our real enemies. All this while Steven Spielberg's brilliant ``Band of Brothers'' television series portrays World War II dogfaces battling ``krauts'' and ``jerries'' and all manner of expletive-described Germans. Though were America at war with Axis powers today, there would be no headlines excoriating ``Huns'' or ``Japs.'' Thus the recent film ``Pearl Harbor'' was sanitized for fear of offending modern-day Japanese; a ``sneak attack'' became a ``surprise attack'' and history, not the warmongers, took the body blows.

No wonder so many of our jaws dropped when David Westin, president of ABC news, said journalists should offer no opinions about the terror of Sept. 11. Westin later recanted, but his initial remark was tantamount to the late Edward R. Murrow suggesting that Hitler not be judged too hastily.

Of course hate speech should be vilified. We are a far wiser people than we were 60 years ago. However, current PC standards might have prevented the great Charlie Chaplin from skewering Hitler in his masterpiece film ``The Great Dictator.'' Somebody would have been insulted. Somebody would have complained.

We make war with etiquette today. We make war with compassion. We drop bombs - and food.

We politely ask permission to troop through noncombatant nations on the way to slaughtering our enemies - and saving our own lives. We pause to consider whether a holy time such as Ramadan should force a moratorium on a campaign against mass murderers.

And when American troops had enemy kingpins in their sights - as recently reported by Pulitzer-Prize winner Seymour Hersh - an Army lawyer deliberated on pulling the trigger while our quarry disappeared in the dust.

Maybe we're somewhat insecure. Maybe we want to feel good about ourselves and better about our mission - a rather ironic state of affairs when one considers that this isn't Korea, Vietnam or Kuwait.

We were the ones attacked. Our spouses and children and brothers and sisters died here - in New York City and Washington.

We aren't fighting someone else's civil war. We aren't defending a puppet regime or oligarchy. Anger is justified. It's OK to despise one's enemies.

Emily Post should indeed have a place at the table, but not in our thoughts or actions of retribution or revenge.