Signs of Progress and Danger

Dennis Fox

September 28, 2001
[slightly modified in Brookline TAB September 11, 2001]

At last week's townwide memorial for the September 11 victims I was struck by the respectful treatment accorded the few who showed up with peace signs. I was glad to hear appeals from the podium for a measured, careful response. This thoughtful approach to figuring out how to react to the horrendous attack has also been apparent in Brookline's schools, parks, and other gathering places.

Brookline's a liberal town. Many residents are aware of the United States' checkered history, even of the American flag's mixed message--flags hang from houses and cars, but relatively few compared to many other places. It seems clear that Brookline's public mood does not closely match the polls claiming huge support for extensive open-ended military action.

That's not to say the town majority wants no action at all. Far from it. But the refusal in places like Brookline to press unthinkingly for an all-out, consquences-be-damned war may be one factor in the Bush Administration's retreat from its initially threatening tone. For this we should be grateful

Unfortunately, George Bush's initial inclinations no doubt reflect those of Americans who live in more gung-ho communities. When the shooting starts, the national mood may push the Administration to live up to its early rhetoric, even if an expanding war not only fails to end terrorism but threatens mass destruction beyond anything ever before experienced.

Still, amidst the pro-war fervor, signs of caution have begun to trickle in to the mainstream media. Websites such as alternet.org are no longer the only places to read critiques of US policy or discover what the rest of the world is up to. The press now reports on mainstream politicians from left and right who challenge Administration proposals to detain noncitizens indefinitely without having to show cause and to expand surveillance of all Americans. Even the question of "why they hate us" is now taken seriously as network news shows and national newspapers begin to explore resentments created by US actions past and present, ranging from support for death squads and corrupt dictatorships to the continuing sanctions that kill thousands of Iraqi children every month.

No one who's paid attention to the rest of the world should have been surprised by the targeting of the World Trade Center. Shocked and horrified, yes. But not surprised. Fortunately, CNN has acknowledged it erred over the years by reducing coverage of important news that its audience wasn't always interested in hearing.

Yet those in charge of our country's response remain little inclined to acknowledge terrorism's sources.

That was clear in President Bush's address to Congress. The effectively delivered speech masked an analysis so superficial that one can only hope his advisers know better. To claim that "the reason they hate us" is that "they" resent American freedom and democracy is so much at odds with the origins of anti-US hostility that any policy based on that analysis must inevitably fail. A Bush appointee's claim on a TV talk show that we're hated because here in the US people can "work hard and get ahead" adds to the sense that too many Administration officials are simply repeating easily digestible platitudes rather than trying to get to the root of the problem.

Widespread resentment over the continuing US role in third-world countries in general and Islamic countries in particular does not bode well for the future. Neither does macho dismissal of the September hijackers as "cowards," the dangerous use of loaded terms such as "crusade," rhetoric about the conflict between "civilization" and "savagery," and Bush's claim that "God is not neutral between us and them." A war of dueling Gods will lead to mass destruction of believers on both sides, the devastation as even-handed as the terminology each side uses to describe its enemy.

I don't mean to imply that there's no serious clash of world views. Quite the contrary. We need to protect ourselves. Of course.

But I'd feel better about our long-term prospects for survival if our determination to root out the enemy was matched by an equal determination to figure out why our enemies have so many supporters rooting for them.