Letter from Peter Anderson
The war on terrorism – March 2002 – Colorado Central Magazine
Dear Martha:
Thanks for your invitation to begin discussing the current war in a forthright way. I appreciated your candor in stating your own views.
Open discussion of our response to 9-11 has not been prevalent. Part of that I think has to do with the call to unity which seems to have squelched any meaningful consideration of the issues. I wish dissent and an invitation to discuss the issues from all vantage points were part of the call for unity.
Clearly, the reactions to those who have taken a different viewpoint suggests otherwise. Barbara Lee, the lone voice of dissent in Congress, who received piles of hate mail including a few death threats, is a good case in point. That kind of political bullying doesn’t promote good dialogue. Nor does a mainstream media that seem to have become a part of the administration’s public relations offensive. For all of the above reasons, I think consideration of the questions raised in your commentary — i.e. why aren’t people talking about this situation and where is the dissent — are crucial in sustaining democracy in the deepest sense of that word.
Since you wondered about alternative views that aren’t being heard, and since you mentioned Quakers in that context, I’d like to respond also as a committed though currently somewhat isolated member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). First of all, you should know that even in the Quaker community there is some uncertainty as to how best to respond to 9-11.
Friend Scott Simon, an NPR journalist, has taken the view that a military response was appropriate under the circumstances and cites those Quakers who enlisted in World War II as precedent for his views. Even in a community known for its commitment to non-violence, there have been and still are dissenting voices and that can only be a good thing.
That said, I want to stand up for a different view than the one offered by Mr. Simon. Responding in a military way to the events of 9-11 was, we were told, an effort to smoke terrorist varmints out of their holes and caves. I’m afraid the President chose the wrong metaphor. Responding militarily has been more like hacking down a thistle that’s already gone to seed. There may be some illusion of accomplishment, but in the end I am afraid one is likely to have a whole lot more thistles to deal with. Better to consider the conditions that invite the thistles in the first place. It is no coincidence that the kind of radical Islam associated with Al Quaeda has taken root in the most impoverished parts of countries like the Philippines and Uzbekistan.
We seem to think we can use our considerable military strength to deal with the problem (although we are now told that our military strength is not considerable enough and that in fact we need to double the defense budget). Wouldn’t we be well advised to direct some of that ill spent money toward the conditions that seem conducive to the spawning of terrorist cells in the first place?
Like you, I believe we need to bring those responsible for terrorism to justice. And you are right in suggesting that past efforts to reign in Bin Laden have not been successful. For the moment, let’s set aside the fact that he is still at large despite our military campaign. And let’s suppose that we could use the momentum toward international solidarity against terrorism to promote cooperation in the enforcement of international law.
Wouldn’t a unified effort at combating terrorism from the orientation of intelligence and law enforcement — one that promotes coöperation instead of military maneuvers and unilateral identification of terrorist problems — be more helpful in the long run?
Thanks to you and Ed for creating and sustaining a valuable community in print,
Peace,
Peter Anderson
Crestone
