...a New York Times review by Michiko Kakutani that criticizes the authors as they
"purvey a worldview of us-versus-them, all-or-nothing, either-or, and this outlook results in a refusal to countenance the possibility that people who do not share the authors' views about the war in Iraq or their faith in a pre-emptive, unilateralist foreign policy might have legitimate reasons for doing so."
I suppose it follows from this statement that Kakutani would rather promote understanding and empathy with respect to injuries that Muslims feel they have suffered at the hands of the United States. No surprise here: Frum and Perle state that some commentators even suggested that Islamic anti-Americanism should be regarded as an understandable reaction to the materialism and hedonism of American life, as refracted through MTV, pornography, and the Internet. Apparently, they were anticipating Kakutani's review. In a Clintonian sort of approach, some Americans seem to believe that if we can "feel our enemies' pain," then we will be on the path to enlightenment and peace. This belief could not be further from the truth.
..... Unfortunately, there are still those in the ivory tower who [....] continue to believe that to humanize and to empathize with violent students, professors, and terrorists is the only way to treat those who wish to do them harm. In fact, however, the old saw "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" applies. Without clear boundaries, and a sense of consequences, their behavior will spiral out of control until they injure themselves and others.
This seems to be the case where America's limp response to terrorism in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s is concerned (Osama bin Laden reportedly joked that the worst Americans would do in response to 9/11 was file a lawsuit.)
.... As any parent can attest, it's hard to punish those close to you. ..... Psychological studies also show it is hard to be harsh toward others when they are humanized or even personalized a bit. This is why defense lawyers have their clients dress up in nice clothes and include personal information about them in trials. It makes their clients seem more human and less likely to receive a severe punishment, despite the fact that they may have murdered someone. Likewise, when the media and academics personalize terrorists to the extent that the American public feels they "know them," it is hard to support acting in ways that are incongruent with our treatment of someone we know. But in trying so hard to humanize the enemy -- who, remember, hates us -- we wind up dehumanizing ourselves, and in the process we do the victims of terrorists and murderers an injustice.
I've seen this in murder cases too, where psychologists and social-services workers are more interested in helping the murderer than in seeking justice. The victim, I'm sometimes told rather callously, is already dead.
Frum and Perle remind us that many would treat international terrorists the same way we treat domestic murderers: as sick people to be cured, without regard to the dignity of those they kill. In our attempt to be overly-tolerant and empathetic, we start to identify too much with the enemy (very much like those suffering from Stockholm syndrome) and start to dehumanize the victims of terror. Surely, the victims of 9/11 deserve more from us than that. As do the potential victims who might be saved by a more realistic, and less "nurturing," approach.
Dr. Helen Smith