Peace Corps Now

GYUMRI, ARMENIA, September 20, 2001 - On Wednesday afternoon, the day after the attacks, President Bush said that America is engaged in “a monumental struggle of good versus evil.” The same day, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, an author and military analyst, told the Washington Post, “It’s time now to start talking about killing people. Terrorists—you can’t reason with them. All you can do is kill them.”

Has anyone considered the irony of such statements?

President Bush has called for “a measured response,” an obvious euphemism for revenge. Predictably, 95 of every 100 Americans have said that they are ready for war. 71 of 100 support military action “even if it means innocent people are killed.” These responses are natural: anger often results after loss and fear.

But before the United States further engages in what we call civilized war, shouldn’t we be asking why something like this occurred? And also, if and when we decide to level the capital of Afghanistan, what will be the consequences?

For those who masterminded the events of September 11, there can be no justifiable defense. Each day, the extent of premeditation involved becomes more and more clear. These reports show us the heart of cold-blooded evil.

But when assessing the larger enemy, we cannot be content to throw blame at a bogeyman. True enough, Osama bin Laden is a self-proclaimed opponent of the United States. But the atmosphere that gives him his power is one of poverty, ethnic and religious hatred and political extremism. Our enemy in this war is not a state or even an organization. Rather, it is the hopelessness that takes people hostage all over the world. The cheering Palestinians are not symbols of human villainy. They are symbols of human poverty.

Considering the world condition, the United States should examine its role in sowing the seeds of discontent. We proclaim ourselves the world superpower, but this title does not only suggest military might. It also obliges us to work toward narrowing the divide between the world’s poorest and richest members. It obliges us to disconnect the strings from our humanitarian aid. It suggests that if there is to be peace in the world, it is mostly our responsibility.

As for our military response? After the initial shock, foreign nations have wisely eased up on the rhetoric, eschewing phrases like “unlimited solidarity” that essentially would give the United States a blank check. Nevertheless, there is a real worry that America will do something rash. Let us not forget that the unilateralist president who was drawing the ire of the world community just weeks ago remains our commander-in-chief.

I won’t deny the experts who say that the terrorist attacks demand retaliation. But Americans are now whipped up into a judgment-impaired frenzy. There will be calls—if there have not been already—to hit every tent camp on the Afghan plains. But unless we can be sure to punish the perpetrators, this will be a mistake. More likely, we will only weaken them, and cause untold collateral damage along the way. Enough innocent lives have already been lost. Killing thousands more is likely to give us only a sickened satisfaction.

This appeal is not some peacenik harangue. There has always been a time for war and a time for peace. But this may be an age when conventional warfare can no longer provide an answer. This is an age in which the cost of war can be humanity itself. It is a time when terrorist warriors cannot possibly be checked. This isn’t the Cold War, when spooks and stool pigeons could tell us what might be coming. This is a time when a box full of anthrax can be placed on a raft and floated down the Potomac River.

We must be creative in our response to terrorism, in the way we wage war against it. If we only fight fire with fire, we risk placing our future on the ash heap of history.