I was pretty nervous about the article I wrote last week, "World Trade Center," (September 18, 2001). I don’t enjoy making anyone mad, and I figured that that article was sure to leave some readers livid. But I took a deep breath and said exactly what I thought. I’ve had a lot of feedback, and have been a bit surprised that nearly all of it has been extremely positive; many people think that a Big War is not the answer.
         Our media, particularly television, tell us that “America is United.” If this means that we share a collective grief about the murderous attacks and a deep concern for the future, then it’s true: we are absolutely united. But if it means that all agree we should go to war, then it’s a lie. In some corners, patriotism is being equated with a desire to go to war, when the benefits of war are far from clear. I love my country, but I think we may be about to make a terrible mistake.
         Bombings or a ground war are likely only to make a bad situation worse. Having already suffered the horrors of war with the Soviet Union and then civil war with life under the thumb of the Taliban, there are currently tens of thousands of probably starving Afghan refugees seeking to flee the additional terror of the U.S. guns now pointed at their country. Pakistan and Iran--who took in millions of refugees during the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan--have now sealed their borders and won’t let them across. How many innocent people will suffer hideous deaths because of a U.S. military action? How much are their lives worth? And might this killing further antagonize mainstream people in the Muslim world, while pushing the more extreme individuals there a little farther--right into the arms of the terrorists? Might we end up becoming Osama bin Laden’s chief recruiter?
         I’m not sure if I’m a pacificist. At this point, I can’t say that I am. But I’m struggling with the idea, and am doubtful if violence ever really helps solve a problem. With that said, I think we should find out who is responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice or otherwise stop their ability to carry out further attacks. A crime like that can’t be ignored. I have heard talk of increasing our secret counter-terrorism force and giving it increased power, such as the ability to quietly assassinate terrorists. The covert and extra-judicial nature of such a force distresses me, and it makes me quite sad that things have come to this. But such a force might be necessary and justifiable in today’s world as reasonable self-defense. It would not be a solution to the problem, but rather an emergency measure by which we could partially protect ourselves. Strict safeguards would be needed so that our counter-terrorism force is solely directed at terrorism and doesn’t assassinate foreign political leaders that our government doesn’t like, or spy on political dissidents here in the United States. We must be extremely selective about any civil liberties that we abandon in the name of security, or we may erode the very freedom that makes our country worth defending.
         But along with any response that we make, we must seek to understand the roots of terrorism. We must look at ourselves to see if we have fed those roots. If we discover any disturbing truths about our own society or about our government’s foreign policies, then we must be prepared to change. Since I wrote last week, I have heard a dramatically increasing number of courageous voices here in the U.S. willing to look honestly in the mirror; this gives me increasing hope. Our schools and our news programs must teach world history and world geography; we can no longer live in a bubble insulated and isolated from the rest of humanity--that bubble is gone forever.
         As I write (September 21), no U.S. attack has yet been launched. I listened carefully to George W. Bush’s speech on September 20, and found it absolutely bone-chilling, because he makes a Big War sound so reasonable, so clearly the right thing to do.
         It’s always easier to see the fault in the other guy than the fault in yourself. But it’s especially useful to look honestly at yourself, because it’s a lot easier to change yourself than it is to change the other guy. Most conflicts are complex interactions involving a clash of differing needs or opposing worldviews--rather than simple situations where one party is pure and blameless, while the other party is an evil villain. I have no doubt that these terrorists are real bad guys. But some of the more reasonable voices in the Muslim world are at least partly in sympathy with them, and we should try to understand why.
         Some people here say that fundamentalist Muslims hate us precisely because of our openness and freedom and democracy--the very things we treasure most about American society. But is that the whole of the story? Why do they hate us? We owe it to ourselves and to the world to look more deeply into such questions before we start shooting. I think we will find that we are not blameless, and I think that the mature response is for us to use this horrendous occurrence as a reminder that in addition to protecting ourselves, we need to take a good hard look in the mirror.
         Although I wish I had written the brilliant line about “history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies,” in President Bush’s speech I unfortunately heard no trace of an attempt to understand the root causes of Middle Eastern sources of violence against the United States, or of questioning whether we have truly earned any of the hatred that feeds those roots. Not a wisp of that self-reflection that comes with maturity. If George W. Bush really speaks for our nation, then we have not yet grown up.
 
 

        Here is my earlier article on this topic: World Trade Center, which in the McKinleyville Press was titled "True security can only come through better understanding and better relations with the world."
        Other articles relating to September 11 and its aftermath are available on the Articles Page.