Partially inspired (if that’s the right word) by this Pit thread, I’ve decided to offer for debate two very popular American ideas that have come to the fore since September 11, 2001. Although I strongly considered writing a BBQ Pit OP, I decided that the questions I want to ask deserve serious answers, and the answers deserve serious consideration. Having been shown in this forum the error of various other opinions I’ve held, I admit that it’s possible this time as well. So I will refrain totally from insulting language in this thread, even in response to same. I do expect some vehement responses, as the subject is emotionally loaded and the questions are intended to be provocative. (Provocative of thought, not anger; this is not a trolling expedition.) Hopefully, however, name calling and divisive drive-by insults can be kept to a minimum.
First Questionable Principle
Beginning immediately after the attacks of September 11, it became unlikely that any mention of historical anger at the US in any discussion of terrorism would fail to be met with an accusation of ‘blaming America’ or of sympathizing with the terrorists. One could hardly begin to suggest temperance in our response without being reminded of ‘5000 dead Americans’ (the commonly believed figure in those first few awful days), or being told that ‘the terrorists’ would only understand brutal force and any vacillation on our part would be perceived as weakness.
Although the reflexive reduction of emergency situations into basic moral equations is an understandable part of grief, shock and anger, and often a useful survival trait in people, this immediate black & white way of viewing the world tends usually, in my experience, to be replaced with more nuanced thinking after the first blush of rage and fear has been replaced with resolute anger. One has come to expect a narrowing of targets, a restriction of retaliatory efforts and, most importantly, a shift from a reflexive point of view toward a more reflective one. In the case of America post 9/11, we’ve definitely seen the first and second shifts, in various degrees within different theaters of operation, but there has been much popular resistance to the last shift.
In fact, as the first anniversary of the despicable attacks approaches there are cries of outrage against attempts to place American response into a global context, or to tie the attacks to messages of tolerance and respect for different cultures. Such attempts have been deemed ‘inappropriate’ and ‘shameful’ by pundits and politicians across the political spectrum. Popular opinion seems to be that only recognition of American heroes or celebration of American strength of will are acceptable additions to national mourning for the victims of 9/11. No reminders of past mistakes or misdeeds are acceptable when connected with 9/11, even as lessons in productive response, even when put in the context of American ideals, and even when accompanied by clear-eyed identification and condemnation of the perpetrators.
So my first series of questions is in regard to the ‘common wisdom’ that discussions of tolerance, presentations of Arab or Muslim points of view, and especially historical examples of American actions which could be viewed by some parties with antipathy are off-limits in relation to the September 11 attacks specifically and in some cases the ‘War on Terror’ in general.
Part 1, first question: What do proponents of this approach consider mutually exclusive about the condemnation of terrorism and the understanding of its roots?
Part 1, second question: What makes discussion of productive responses to terror an inappropriate part of September 11 remembrances? Followup: If some discussion of response is appropriate, why must it not contain or criticize historical American policies, and why must it not include condemnation of bigotry or scapegoating of Muslim Americans?
Second Questionable Principle
In his first public comment on September 11, President George W. Bush described the attacks as ‘acts of war’. He made little mention at that time whether this characterization would be qualified depending on the involvement of a particular state; however, his later pronouncements made clear that he considered America in a state of war with or without an identified state sponsor and would take measures based on that consideration.
Since that day, common agreement has been that US efforts against terrorism, however loosely defined, do in fact constitute a ‘war status’ for the nation. A considerable commonality also exists among Americans of the opinion that the conduct of this war legitimately affords the executive branch of government extraordinary domestic powers. Almost universally among American media outlets, the term “War on Terror’ has been used uncritically to describe not only US military activities in pursuit of al Qaeda, detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and participation in the Philipines, but also the internal activities of the Justice Department in its prosecution and detention of individuals.
My second series of questions, then, pertain to the perception that efforts to combat terrorism and bring terrorists to justice can best be accomplished through declared warfare, rather than through international law enforcement abetted where necessary by military action.
Part 2, first series: By declaring war on ‘terrorism’, do we follow international rules of war, giving default ‘state’ status to all terrorist organizations? Or just to the State Dept.’s list of designated terrorist organizations? Or to none of them? Follow up: If we recognize any terrorist organization as a war opponent, do we then accept the leadership of this organization as a legitimate governing body, capable of offering terms? Is bin Laden or his successor a legitimate head of state? How are terms of war and peace to be drawn? Do we accept cease-fires from al-Qaeda? Would we accept or trust a surrender from bin-Laden or his successor to hold for the entire organization?
Part 2, second series: If a particular terrorist organization such as al Qaeda successfully carries out an attack on a US military vessel, similar to the USS Cole, is this now a legitimate act of war? Is it a war crime, and if so on what grounds? It it a crime in the civil sense, and if so on what grounds? What about suicide attacks on ‘strategic’ targets; are these prosecutable as war crimes, and again on what grounds?
Part 2, third series: Must captured terrorists be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions, instead of being prosecuted as criminals? If not, what makes them different from other war combatants? If all terrorists are ‘unlawful’ combatants, then how can a lawful war be conducted? If some terrorists are ‘lawful’ combatants, how do we differentiate, since we’re using their membership in the terrorist organization as their political identity, rather than their country of citizenship or their geographical location? If ‘unlawful combatants’ are identified, how can they not be subject to due process?
Part 2, last series: In what way or ways can the ‘war on terror’ be undeclared? When is it over, and how do we know?
I invite all who believe in the proscription of certain subjects when associated with the September 11 attacks or the memorials, or who support the concept of a ‘war on terror’ to respond.
