Revenge. It's a word that's been tossed around frequently after the unconscionable acts of terrorism perpetuated against the United States. Having been driven to anger and fear by the events of Sept. 11, many Americans have come to believe that our only appropriate action is military retaliation, in order to demonstrate to the world and in particular the terrorist groups and the nations harboring them that America is strong, and will punish anyone who dare cross Her path. But the question I would pose to that line of thinking is this: Would that really accomplish anything?
As a pacifist, I find it difficult to support any military action. Yet I must acknowledge that this case is fundamentally different from any that we have encountered since at least World War II. After all, this is not an example of government seeking its own interest by using questionable political ideas (think domino theory) to justify the use of force. We were attacked. The lives of thousands of innocent and brave people were taken in a heinous and unprovoked act of hate. My first impulse is always to seek reconciliation, but based on the nature of this enemy that might be impossible. Our collective sense of security as a nation has been shattered. Inaction could very well place more American lives in danger in both the short and long term, so I begrudgingly admit that use of our military might very well be necessary.
But what should be the nature of that action? To understand what might be solutions to the problem of terrorism, we must first understand its source. It is fashionable to say that the United States is a target for attack because our enemies hate our way of life and the values of freedom and democracy that we represent. While this might be somewhat true, the main reason lies elsewhere. It is not our way of life that makes us a target to the Islamic radical terrorists, but rather their belief that we represent a major threat to theirs. When listening to interviews of terrorist leaders, it becomes clear that they think the United States aims to destroy them (as is particularly demonstrated through our support for Israel), making it their duty to in turn destroy the United States and protect their faith. The popularity of this line of thinking is the principle obstacle we must overcome. Excessive use of force will only exacerbate the problem, as it will lend credence to the radical Islamic argument that we are bent on their destruction.
Thus, military action with no purpose besides retaliation should be avoided. Some might counter that our nation's response must be forceful for symbolic value. They feel it necessary to instill fear into the hearts of our potential enemies, and make them rethink ever crossing our path again. Even disregarding moral implications (something we should never do), this would not be effective and would actually generate more destruction. Consider our enemy and their nature. They are extremists who are completely callous regarding human life, as they are in fact quite willing to give their own lives for their cause. How are we supposed to instill fear into people who are ready to die? How are we supposed to force into submission a group that will be indifferent to the loss of life around them? It is ludicrous to think that our demonstration of might will cause these terrorists to fold. Rather, it will strengthen their resolve and likely bring in new people to their cause, as their people will have to come together to survive against their common enemy: us. And worse still, it will result in a new generation of Islamic children in the Middle East growing up to hate Americans. Things would only get worse.
Our actions, then, must be based on one central goal: to isolate the terrorists from their own countrymen. The only chance in stopping these terrorist groups lies in turning their people against them. An erosion of public support would deprive them of the safe harbor they currently enjoy and make them fugitives within their own land. Other countries might actually assist the United States in stopping and capturing these terrorists, rather than giving them implicit or explicit aid as they currently do. And it would be much harder for these terrorist groups to perceive of a mandate if the general populace did not support their actions. The dancing in the streets that occurred in some Middle Eastern countries on the day of the attack shows that this is clearly not the case now.
Of course this is all easier said than done, but there are actions we can take. We need to pursue allies in the region, and always give countries the opportunity for choice before taking action, hopefully allowing them to join our side. We should demand that countries hand over terrorists they harbor, letting them know that at the present we consider the terrorists to be separate from the nation and its people, but should they fail to cooperate, that distinction would no longer be made. And should nations decide to defy the United States and/or act out against it, then we might have to resort to force, but only after insuring that our case is just and that the world supports our action, lest we make more enemies than we started with. In short, every action should be gauged by its future consequences, as our goal should be prevention, not retaliation. We should be seeking to prevent a future tragedy rather than extending the current one.
