A time for peace, not retaliation (leftist says "I told you so")

Alternet.org ^ | Sept. 11, 2001 | Elijah Wood

[seamus]

Print this story | E-mail this story

A Time for Peace, Not Retaliation
Elijah Wald, TomPaine.com
September 11, 2001

As I write, another expert is on television, saying that tougher security measures are needed to prevent future terrorist acts. He is saying that the United States has always put civil liberties ahead of security, and now may have to rethink that.

If there is one lesson in the destruction of the World Trade Center and damage to the Pentagon, it is that such talk is idiocy. Technology has made it possible for a couple of individuals to destroy the largest building in the world with nothing but the will to do so and whatever it takes to hijack a passenger plane. Likewise, a biological or chemical bomb that would kill thousands of people could be carried in a suitcase.

If we want a safer world in this situation, we cannot achieve it militarily. For decades, the United States has acted as if, as the world's most powerful nation, it could safely explore violent solutions to international issues, while itself remaining inviolate. Every time the United States has bombed a major city -- be it Hiroshima, Hanoi, Baghdad, or Tripoli -- people on the ground must have wished that they could do the same to New York or Washington. As United States operatives facilitated and supported murderous, terrorist regimes throughout Latin America, Africa, and Asia, millions of "innocent" civilians must, in their pain and anger, have wished that similar death and destruction could be visited on us. As we learned in Oklahoma City, such feelings are felt even here in the United States, raging at deadly governmental assaults on homegrown cults and militias.

President Bush has been arguing that the way to avoid attacks on our cities is a missile shield. One has to assume that even now he is trying to figure out where this assault came from, and how to retaliate. It is the dogma of American leaders that violence must be met with violence. Whether such responses are moral or immoral is arguable; what is certain is that they do not make anyone safer. Those of us who argue for dramatic action to reduce world poverty, to destroy the international arms trade, to rein in the awesome powers of American, European, or other major capital, are often called utopian dreamers.

Quite the contrary, the dreamers are those who think that brut force will bring any kind of lasting safety and peace anywhere, anytime. It would be absurd and insane to say that the death and destruction in New York was deserved, but it was certainly fueled by the same sort of logic that has informed much U.S. policy in the last few decades -- that overwhelming military strikes are a valid way of advancing policy. It would be insane to say that it was our turn to be confronted with tragic loss of civilian life, but it was a fantasy that we could be spared forever. This time, no "weapons of mass destruction" were used, and yet the death toll seems certain to be in the thousands.

Will this persuade our leaders that this is no time to tear up arms control treaties and let nuclear weapons proliferate as never before? That this is not a time to reduce United States diplomatic outreach to the rest of the world and increase military might? To try to take steps that would reduce the hopeless misery that fuels insane responses from people throughout the world, rather than supporting virtually any oppressive regime that guarantees profits to American businesses? Or will this tragedy just plunge us deeper into fear, violence, and the senseless pursuit of invulnerability through military force?

I cannot claim to have a solution to the world's woes, but anyone not criminally insane will have to grant that we cannot fight and bomb our way out of this problem, that force will not bring a solution.

Elijah Wald is a musician and writer currently completing a book on Mexican drug culture, to be published by Harper Collins next year.

[seamus]

A local leftist priest, who continually e-mails me anti-Bush and pro-Socialist stories, sent this gem today. This has to be one of the dumbest (and inappropriate, and infuriating) things I've ever read.

Those of us who argue for dramatic action to reduce world poverty, to destroy the international arms trade, to rein in the awesome powers of American, European, or other major capital, are often called utopian dreamers. Quite the contrary, the dreamers are those who think that brut force will bring any kind of lasting safety and peace anywhere, anytime.

Yes, today is a great time to plug one's political dogma.

[eddie willers]

So we should roll over and hope that they rub our belly?

Liberals are idiots because they continue to deny history.

[Slim Pickens]

Hmmmm, I bet ELIJAH would LOVE for us to turn the other cheek. What do we say to that, Gang???

How about:

F*CK YOU, ELIJAH.

[seamus]

It would be absurd and insane to say that the death and destruction in New York was deserved, but it was certainly fueled by the same sort of logic that has informed much U.S. policy in the last few decades...

Don't you just love this part? "I'm not saying we deserved it (because that would be horrible) so I'll just suggest that others think we deserve it, then not condemn such thoughts." What a disgusting person.

[Sid Rich]

As much as I favor a non-interventionist foreign policy, this spate of "America brings everything on itself" articles are pissing me off. Those articles ignore certain valid points in my opinion.

1. Terrorism and terrorist organizations can be defeated. As another poster on another thread pointed out, the British defeated Indian terrorist organizations. They did it with good intelligence and ruthless eradication of the enemy. The terrorists did not free India from the British Empire. While Savarkar was hiding out in the USSR, it was Gandhi's peaceful protests that largely won Indian independence.

2. Laqueur's classic text "The Age of Terrorism" makes the same point. Terrorists are most easily handled by killing them. The problem is keeping sub-state conflict from spilling over into full scale war between nation-states.

3. While America's interventionist foreign policy has lead to "blowback"...it's not like we were never attacked by these same nuts when we were more isolationist. One of the US's first major foreign-policy quandaries was how to deal with the Barbary Pirates in the 1790s. We tried diplomacy (including bribery) but finally had to build a fleet, sail over, and raze their towns before they would leave us alone.

I think reassessing (and lessening) US interventions overseas will help lessen the potential for these incidents, but we also need to kill terrorists. I would revoke the anti-assassination policy and let our intelligence services hunt down the cowards. I think that's a pragmatic solution short of making Afghanistan a nuclear parking lot....although last night, the thought that we might be striking Kabul seemed pretty good.

Just my 2 cents.

[seamus]

Bump of outrage.

[KC_Conspirator]

You tell that left wing priest that he is unworthy of the freedoms we enjoy.

[Benrand]

So this jerk has a blind spot when it comes to Hiroshima.

I got it, let's fight world poverty by blowing up a building...a building that HELPS fight poverty...

They are pathetic.

[ladtx]

Elijah Wald is a musician and writer currently completing a book on Mexican drug culture, to be published by Harper Collins next year.

Now what kind of credibility does this guy carry? Why is this garbage even posted?

[Havoc]

I think we should just export these idiots to a third world country like iraq and let them see their ideologies in practice... for the rest of their lives!

[VoodooEconomist]

I seem to recall an moronic leftist by the name of Neville Chamberlin that assured the world that we would have "peace in our time." Some lessons of history are never learned. Liberals have an especially hard time learning from history. But I suppose that's their nature. After all, nothing noteworthy or noble has come before a liberal's life. For each liberal, world history begins at their birth.

[seamus]

I already did. Here was his response:

I say this with sincerity of heart and compassion. When then is the proper time to address the causes of this attack? There will always be someone with a bigger stick or who knows how to use it in a more destructive way. When does the cycle of violence end?

I can think of no more appropriate words at this time than the words of Jesus:"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy'. But I tell you :Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven, He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? ...And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?... Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."(Matthew 5:43-48) Now is the time for us to seek 'perfection' in America.

[KC_Conspirator]

When does the cycle of violence end?

How many people is it going to take for him? Fifty, a hundred thousand, a million people before he stops defending America's enemies? I would also add that it appears that the perpetrators of this act of war don't follow the teachings of Jesus.