Thanks to Alex for asking these thoughtful questions. I've been trying to figure out how I think the US should respond -- partly because I feel that it's my responsibility as a US resident to have an opinion, and partly just to deal with my growing sense of dread and confusion. I hope Ishbadiddle will induldge me as I share some very preliminary ideas.
First, were these attacks acts of war? It is pretty clear to me that Osama bin Laden (or whoever planned the attacks) sees them as acts of war. It seems that a war is exactly what the perpetrators want, and the more widespread the better. They want an openly hostile conflict between nation-states -- or at least between two clearly-defined groups of people with (as they see it) irreconcilable values. I think terrorism is using terror as a means of coercion -- to get the target population to do what you want. The perpetratrors of the NY attacks do not want to coerce the US to act in a certain way; they want to destroy the US.
Second, should we now behave as if we're at war? I say no. This may sound strange, but I think that we should NOT treat the attacks as acts of war precisely because that's what the perpetrators want us to do. By accepting their premise that this is a war, we are playing into their hands. Here's why: If this is a war, we will use military force to attempt to destroy (or at least subdue) the "enemy." But who is the enemy? In a war, it's generally a nation-state -- the logical choice here is countries that "harbor" terrorists. So in this war, we would attack Afghanistan, Iraq (as some in the Bush adminintration are now advocating), and perhaps Libya, Syria, and others. By doing so, we would not only kill many innocent people; we would create a coalition of nations (some potentially with biological and nuclear warfare capabilities) actively fighting against the US -- and that to me is a terrifying thought.
I think the best course for the US -- both ethically and strategically -- is to treat the attacks as crimes against humanity (which they were), and to lead an international effort to bring the perpretrators to justice. This may mean working with Afghanistan and other countries that "harbor" terrorists to pressure them to stop the harboring and to get their law enforcement organizations to work with the US to capture the terrorists. It may mean sending covert teams into these countries, not to attack the governments, but to round up terrorists. And, while the goal should be to bring the terrorists to justice (and give them a fair trial, perhaps in an international court), it may mean killing suspected terrorists who resist. This course of action may also mean providing more international aid and working to eliminate the poverty and inequality that give rise to extremist groups of all kind (this is not meant to excuse terrorist acts or to suggest that bin Laden is poor or oppressed, but merely to recognize that terrorism is a lot less common in societies that are politically and eocnomically stable) -- in the long run, it is this kind of effort, not war, that will stop terrorism.
Ethically, I'm not sure it makes sense to separate "war" from other conditions -- and thus to suggest that "acts of war" justify "acts of war" in response. I think the US military should be used to keep the peace, to defend against attacks, and also to bring people who have committed crimes against humanity to justice (which means, wherever possible, capturing people rather than killing them -- although clearly that's not always an option) -- in all cases taking extreme care to avoid the loss of human life. To use the Pearl Harbor analogy, did the Japanese attack on the US justify military action to stop Japanese expansion in Asia? I say definitely yes: The US was trying to keep the peace. But did Pearl Harbor and the ensuing war justify the US dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? I don't think so. I recognize that the standards I outlined above are pretty broad (one could argue, I suppose, that the atomic bombs were dropped in self-defense, but I think that's a stretch), but I think we need to have SOME ethical standards like these or we risk lowering ourselves to the level of terrorists.
The other aspect of "waging war" that frightens me is the effects here in the US. Already, we are hearing calls for large scale-backs of privacy rights and, to a lesser extent, civil rights -- some coming from John Ashcroft, who, ironically enough, was one of the most vocal opponents of Clinton's efforts to impose similar restrictions after the Oaklahoma City bombing. Clearly, the FBI and CIA need to do a better job with intelligence gathering, and maybe they need more resources, but we don't need fewer rights. Finally, I have heard calls for racial profiling of Arab-Americans as a security strategy: One poll I heard about on NPR apparently found that close to 50 percent of respondents thought that Arab-Americans should have to carry special identity cards. This stuff just makes me sick to my stomach.
I look forward to hearing others' thoughts.
| War | War on Terror | 9/11 |
