How Far I've Come Since High School...

Terrorism: Seeing the Whole Picture

Introduction: By supporting totalitarian regimes in Middle East nations, imposing economic sanctions on Iraq, and supporting Israel against the Palestinian people, the United States has contributed to the deaths of many innocent people and has become a symbol of terror and oppression for many Muslims. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were in part a result of American abuses of human rights abroad. Americans are justifiably angry at the terrorists behind the September 11 attacks. Many call for military reprisals. However, war has failed to deter terrorism and inevitably kills innocent bystanders and civilians. The United States should seek out ways of bringing the terrorists to justice and work to remove the underlying causes of terrorism.

I. Response to Terrorism
A. Purpose
1. Prevent future attacks
2. Bring terrorists to justice
B. Precautions
1. Developing an obsession
2. Inspiring more attacks

II. Government Propaganda
A. Reasons for concern
1. deception
2. danger
B. Effects
1. Undeserved support
2. Unnecessary death

III. U.S. Foreign Policy
A. "Blowback"
1. Afghanistan
2. Saudi Arabia
B. Foreign Offenses
1. Iran
2. Iraq
C. Effects of U.S. Foreign Policy
1. Civilian casualties
2. International resentment

IV. Financial Abuses
A. Increases gap between rich/poor
1. American role
2. International response
B. Big Brother Policy
1. What it means
2. Needed change

V. Hypocritical Morals
A. Symbol of Evil
1. Supporting totalitarian regimes
2. Supporting Israel
B. Human Rights Violations
1. Economic sanctions in Iraq
2. Palestinian treatment

Conclusion: The people of Afghanistan are not liable for September 11 and should not be preyed upon by American revenge. Where an appropriate response will sow the seeds of friendship, striking their homelands will give rise to a new generation of terrorists. We need to gain the strength of character and moral authority by taking on the economic and social disparities that give rise to hopelessness and frustration.

William Drinkwater
12-2-02
Honors Contemporary Issues

Terrorism: Seeing the Whole Picture

Pacifist Brian Willson understands that most Americans perceive the United States as a symbol of freedom, capitalism, democracy, and as being the world’s model country (Willson). Abroad, perceptions of America differ enormously. As distinguished university professor Benjamin Barber observes, if we were not already aware of this reality, the September 11 attacks certainly brought it to out attention (Barber). In response, Washington quickly put the blame on the Al-Qaeda organization operated by Osama bin Laden and subsequently launched a vast campaign to battle terrorism. International adviser David Aaron reminds us of how President Bush assured that America would pursue this task with the greatest determination. He also managed to make this an international war as opposed to a strictly American war (Aaron). Virtually everyone was stunned, desperate, and unbelieving that something like this could happen on American soil. An unprecedented attack on the homeland left us dismayed. Nevertheless, Bush decided to commit the United States to a prolonged war against terrorism which, if ended, would greatly damage American credibility. As a result, we were quickly dragged into a sizeable undertaking before considering the best possible solution (Aaron). We should have taken time to mourn our losses before reacting in a manner that undermines our character as a strong a proud people who believe in the rule of law and justice.

Professor David Falk believes it is appropriate to root out any terrorists associated with the 9/11 attacks, but this allowance should not frustrate the main task at hand: to prevent foreign terrorists from attacking the homeland in the future (Falk). Unfortunately, I fear that the search for Al-Qaeda and bin Laden has become an obsession which obstructs what should be our chief focus. The U.S. Military can hunt terrorists in Afghanistan all it likes, but that is likely to produce even more terrorists for the future (Falk). Others believe that in order to significantly reduce the chances of another attack, we need to consider the terrorists’ grievances and try to understand why they felt violated (Willson). Few people willingly give their lives for a cause, and since these men did, they obviously felt strongly about their mission. Bush can call these attacks cowardly, but the fact of the matter is, these men were anything but cowards. This is not to lessen the crimes they committed or to encourage any kind of admiration for murderers. However, we need to put ourselves in Muslim shoes and identify with their pleas. I agree with the University of Illinois News Bureau’s opinion that until we understand the Middle Eastern mind-set towards America, we cannot realistically expect to make effective progress in the war against terror (Mitchell).

Despite common assumptions, the United States Government implements an unsettling amount of propaganda to assure its citizens that the 9/11 attacks came without provocation. This deception should concern Americans for multiple reasons. First, as a nation ruled "by the people" and "for the people" we deserve to know the truth. I doubt any voters went to the polls hoping to elect candidates who would convey partial truths and condescend them by withholding critical information. Secondly, when the public lacks crucial facts and the government assumes too much authority, the honest request of the people will not prevail. As a result, the government’s covert acts around the globe inevitably come back to the people in the form of violence (Falk). When this happens, the causes are kept from American eyes and people cannot make the necessary connections for an explanation; with no explanation, support for the use of government force increases (Willson). Before unraveling our predicament concerning Iraq and the war on terrorism, we must accept the reality that America’s behavior on the international level does not always match our preconceived notions.

Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, sited the 9/11 attacks as examples of "blowback." This is a term which the CIA invented to describe unforseen repercussions of U.S. activities abroad (Beinart). Basically this says that failures of America’s previous foreign involvements have, in effect, provoked recent attacks. This principle is most directly applicable through our relations to Osama bin Laden in the 1980's. During the Cold War, the United States funded bin Laden in the Afghani defense against the Soviet Union. We provided his men with training, equipment, and capital to support our competition with the Soviet Union, but when the war ended, Afghanistan needed assistance rebuilding its afflicted infrastructure. However, after Afghanistan lost their Cold War value, Washington gave them little consideration, and it began a two year civil war that enabled the Taliban to come to power (Beinart). On top of this, following the Gulf War, the U.S. based American troops in Saudi Arabia to defend its fiercely authoritarian regime and further enraged bin Laden. Rather than continue with foreign policy as usual, the United States needs to make a serious effort to analyze and curb its global military activities.

America’s struggle against terrorism would be much easier if bin Laden posed the only threat. Unfortunately, the United States has committed selfish, immoral acts in numerous countries, including: Iraq, Iran, Chile, Panama, Saudi Arabia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (Beinart). In 1973 the United States contributed to the overturning of fairly elected Salvador Allende of Chile and carried out illegal "extrajudicial killings" of civilians. In the 1960's the United States fixed Iranian rule by placing the Shah in power whose reign was characterized by inordinate cruelty and suppression. We armed and backed Saddam Hussein so long as he warred with Iran, but when that war ended, we bombed and starved his people for over a decade in a poorly conceived effort to get rid of him. These misguided operations convinced many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy. As the U.S. promotes the values of democracy, Washington simultaneously showers authoritarian empires in the Middle East with billions of dollars to make sure its people are kept from fulfilling their common aspirations (Barber). When the United States abuses its economic and military powers to shape the international scene in its favor, the rise of American resentment is only expected (Falk).

The financially driven process the United States takes in shaping global trade policies inevitably magnifies the imbalance between the rich and the poor (Falk). Seeking to engender changes in other nations' fundamental values so that they resemble America's is unreasonable. The Middle East is particularly offended by this because while the United States claims to be a "peacekeeper," it is in fact more of a big bully. Washington treats its "allies" as irresponsible adolescents when it should start treating them like fellow adults. This would mean both accepting them as peers and acknowledging the legitimacy of their national interests. However, as opposed to using its economic resources to end world hunger and redistribute the wealth of the planet, the United States only aspires to build upon its already disproportionate prosperity. The role America espouses in global economics gives rise to widespread resentment that at its inner core fuels the terrorist impulse. A more equitable distribution of global economic growth and development should be considered. America would be better off eschewing the theory of a global and universal duty, which not only commits it to unending wars of intervention, but intoxicates its thinking with the illusion that it is a crusader for righteousness. The less America does, and the less others expect it to do, the more other states will do to help themselves.

Middle Easterners not only criticize America’s selfish attitude in their region, but also the contradictory morals which it exhibits (Barber). By supporting totalitarian regimes in the Middle East, imposing economic sanctions on Iraq, and supporting Israel against Palestine, the United States has contributed to countless deaths and has become a personification of corruption and oppression for many Muslims. The 9/11 attacks were largely the result of these foreign human rights violations. Since 1991, American-led sanctions against Iraq and the effects of depleted uranium have killed roughly one million children (Willson). Since the Palestinian uprising started in September 2000, the United States has killed seven hundred Palestinians and injured twenty-five thousand more. The United States must hold itself to a higher standard. If we believe, like the terrorists, that our rationale is just, and that innocent lives may have to be lost to exact justice, then we become ethical villains, defining justice in terms of retribution and ruthlessness and we preserve the cycle of violence. Michael Lerner speculates: Do we rationalize the deaths of innocents abroad as the cost of fighting terrorism? Do we make clear to the world that we hold human life sacred only if it is American life? Or do we find ways to safeguard our lives and property in a way that honors the foundations of our society? (Lerner). Ominously, David Kaplan, writer for U.S. News and World Reports, expects extensive military retaliation with its unavoidable "collateral damage" will produce further despondent and embittered people (Kaplan).

The injustices Washington inflicts on the Middle East conveniently fail to reach the American public, and as a result, U.S. citizens remain ignorant of its own terrorism (Barber). War history professor Michael Howard recalls how leading executives like President Bush and Colin Powell blamed extremists determined to damage democracy and western civilization for the 9/11 attacks (Howard). This interpretation is not only misleading but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America’s tyrannical enterprises have created (Willson). Regrettably, the public’s understanding of international affairs is so faint as to prevent it from distinguishing loaded representation from reality. These terrorists did not attack either democracy or freedom, as our political leaders and media claim. They attacked American foreign policy. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the misdeeds of the invulnerable (American Heritage). The widespread perception within the region that the Middle East has long been a victim of "Western imperialism" of course exacerbates this animosity. Moreover, aggrieved groups throughout the Middle East contest the legitimacy of the regimes in Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait which the United States supports, making America even more of a lightning rod for the hostile parties. The U.S. deploys such overwhelming military force globally that only such an "asymmetric" strategy could yield any success (Aaron). This "asymmetric" method payed off immensely on September 11, rendering our massive military machine worthless.

Americans are rightly indignant towards the terrorists behind the September 11 attacks. Many urge for military pay back. However, military operation has failed to deter terrorism and consequently kills uninvolved bystanders and civilians (Howard). The people of Afghanistan are not liable for September 11 and should not be preyed upon by American revenge. Michael Lerner of Time Magazine rightly thinks the United States should instead seek out alternative ways of bringing the terrorists to justice and aim to remove the foundations of terrorism (Lerner). Children growing up in the developing world look to the already mature world, particularly the United States, as an example. Will Afghan and Iraqi children, having been subjected to hunger, disease, and oppression, perceive at the United States as a model of what they want for their country or as the antagonist on whom to seek revenge? Where an appropriate response will sow the seeds of friendship, striking their homelands will give rise to a new generation of terrorists (Lerner). Americans should confirm that we are not like the terrorists and do not take the lives of innocents. We need to gain the strength of character and moral authority by taking on the economic and social disparities that give rise to hopelessness and frustration (Howard). While it may involve determining those responsible, routing them out and seeing that they are brought to justice, the campaign against terrorism must seek to pull out the roots that spread hatred, fear, and desperation.

Works Cited

Aaron, David. "The New Twilight Struggle." The American Prospect. 22 October 2001: 24.

Barber, Benjamin R. "Beyond Jihad vs. McWorld." Nation. 21 January 2002: 11.

Beinart, Peter. "Back to Front." The New Republic. 8 October 2001: 8.

Falk, Richard. "Defining a Just War." The Nation. 29 October 2001: 11.

Howard, Michael. "What’s in a Name?: How to Fight Terrorism." Foreign Affairs. Jan-Feb 2002: 8.

Kaplan, David. "The CEO of Terror Inc." U.S. News & World Report. 1 October 2001: 19.

Lerner, Michael. "The Case for Peace." Time. 1 October 2001: 77.