The Real Challenge

November 2001

When suicide bombers kill thousands of civilians, what is the appropriate response? How is life best protected from future similar attacks? Can we create a world in which no one feels compelled to such wanton violence?

In the wake of the horror of September 11, it is easy to understand many people’s impatience with such questions; the desire for vengeance is an instinctual reaction. But our own self-interest demands that we look beyond revenge to ask instead how best to prevent future violence.

President Bush would have us dismiss last month’s attacks as simply the insane acts of evil people. Since these madmen are beyond reason or redemption, the only solution is to track them down and kill them; if thousands of unlucky civilians die in the crusade to see God’s justice done, well, that’s unfortunate, but it can’t be helped. In his demonization of the enemy as evil, in casting the conflict as between pure virtue and utter depravity, and in his willingness to sacrifice more human life in pursuit of the righteous cause, Bush has much in common with those he labels as Satanic.

But it is a perilous delusion to believe that the violence of September 11 was merely the product of demonic minds. The attacks did not occur in a vacuum. They had an historical cause. The hijackers and their underwriters saw themselves as God’s agents delivering justice to an “evil” United States. Their interpretation of the US’s relations with Israel, or US military bases on Arabian soil, or the US’s campaign against Iraq may be disputed– but their outrage is undeniable. And while some of the hijackers may have regretted the “collateral damage” caused in targeting American “command and control centers,” they were still willing to kill to make their political point.

Those opposed to a militaristic response to last month’s attacks rightly note the hypocrisy in the US condemnation of “terrorism,” since recent history is littered with examples of the US resorting to bombs in order to have its way. To civilians in Panama City or Sudan or Baghdad, like their fellow human beings in New York and Washington, it matters little the country of origin of the bombs that fall from the skies.

But those who insist on a non-violent response to September 11’s atrocities can and must do more than plead that more killing is immoral. They must argue that in this case meeting violence with more violence is impractical and counterproductive. They must note that though a violent response may seem emotionally appealing, it is imprudent and ultimately leaves us all more vulnerable.

What will more violence against US-hating fundamentalists do? If a few are killed, they become martyrs, their blood demanding vengeance. If a larger purge is attempted, the US will be portrayed as an enemy of Islam, religion to 1.5 billion of the globe’s people. Either way, more attacks on US targets are assured. And let us be clear: we have no defense against suicide bombers, no matter how we shred the Bill of Rights in a mad rush towards becoming a police state– put ten bombs in checked luggage on ten planes, and nine of them will go undetected; install thousands more airport bomb detectors, and the target will shift to sports stadiums.

It takes strength to resist the impulse to lash out when grievously wronged, but pragmatic self-interest, as well as moral imperatives, demand we show restraint. And restraint is not the same as appeasement nor inaction. In foregoing a violent response, we need not cave in to any demands. And deciding not to drop bombs does not mean we cannot seek to identify, expose, isolate, and apprehend those responsible for the tragedies of September 11.

Refusing to be baited in to perpetuating an endless cycle of violence and retribution is, both emotionally and politically, a difficult task. But resisting the impulse to strike back violently, even though provoked by horrific acts, is, ultimately, the wisest and safest course.

Pasted from <http://guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=5CD0301F-F0C7-411E-A7B21A2CA535803D>