Americans, we're told, must now unite behind the president. Yet the Bush
administration is itself divided by a struggle between pragmatists and
hardliners. It will likely remain so as its responses to the terrible
attacks of September 11 continue to evolve. These divisions could give the
voices of ordinary citizens a key role in influencing critical decisions.
But only if we find the courage to speak out.
So far, we've watched from the sidelines, angry, mourning, and
shell-shocked, while Bush's advisors debate their responses. Congressional
Democrats have been silent as well, politically cowed. Meanwhile, Colin
Powell and national security advisor Condoleeza Rice advocate for creating
as broad an international alliance as possible, and pursuing specific
delimited goals of bringing those responsible to justice. At the same time,
others, like secretary of defense Donald Rumsfield, assistant secretary of
defense Paul Wolfowitz, and long-time Cold Warriors Richard Perle, Jeane
Kirkpatrick, and Bill Kristol, are arguing for attacks against regimes from
the Taliban to Iraq, Iran, and Syria, as well as radical groups in Lebanon
and the West Bank. During the Reagan era, this same group pioneered the
theology of winnable nuclear wars and (along with Bush's new U.N.
ambassador, John Negroponte) spearheaded U.S. support for a disturbing array
of dictators and government-sponsored death squads. Now, as Powell and some
of the Pentagon generals have pointed out, they risk igniting the entire
Islamic world against us.
The risks are real. Think of Iran, and the delicate path that reformer
Mohammad Khatami is pursuing toward democratization. Bomb enough Islamic
civilians, and his already-beleaguered regime will fall, replaced by the
Ayatollahs. Think of Pakistan, with its nuclear capabilities and
fundamentalists eager to topple a military government. If we further the
cycle of indiscriminate violence, we'll only incite more terrorists.
For the moment, Powell's position seems to be prevailing, but as the bombs
begin to fall, and given the historical antagonism between him and Dick
Cheney, and the Bush administration's consistent pursuit of rightwing
policies in its first six months, we should take nothing for granted. So for
all the calls to simply "support the president," it may be the voices of
everyday citizens that determine which views prevail, and whether these
terrible events are the last of their kind, or the beginning of still more
brutal cycles of vengeance. As citizens, we may feel an impulse to defer
responsibility, to say we don't know enough, or it's not our place to speak
out. We may be intimidated by Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer's bullying
warning, about Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher, that Americans "need
to watch what they say, watch what they do." But with the stakes so high, we
can't afford to be silent. If we have reservations against responding to
these unconscionable attacks with our own indiscriminate violence, we need
to speak out now, to prevent our government from embarking on paths that
will bring neither security nor justice.
The polls show support for Bush's responses so far, but not for unlimited
retaliation. From conversations I've had in some of the most conservative
regions of the country, many who praise Bush do so specifically because they
view his reactions as restrained, though it seems to me a grave mistake that
he refused to even entertain those rituals of discussion that might have
allowed the Taliban to both comply with our demands and save face. Americans
want our government to apprehend those who created these attacks-but not to
embark on a global "Crusade" that could far too easily become a global war.
If we do speak out and demand that our elected representatives to do the
same, we'll have at least a chance of helping to shape public debate in
wiser directions-like stopping the continued buildup of a missile defense
system that would not have protected us from the terrible attacks of
September 11, and would not protect us in the future. We might work to
combine Powell's doctrine of multilateral intervention with policies that
develop genuine global justice and democracy, and refuse to cannibalize the
earth. We need to reject approaches that risk seeding the ground for future
bitter harvests of destruction.
We'd do well to recall, in this context, that our leaders, including Bush
senior, helped arm and train Osama bin Laden and promote Afghan opium
production as part of our support for the anti-Soviet Mujahideen. They
backed Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party as a counterweight to Iran,
whose Ayatollah came to power as leader of the only force capable of
overthrowing the brutal Shah. The United States had supported the Shah since
our CIA installed him in 1953, after overthrowing an elected prime minister
who'd dared to talk of nationalizing oil. Few Americans even know about the
estimated one million Iraqis who have died because the Gulf War and our
continuing embargo have destroyed their most basic health and sanitation
systems. But to the Islamic world, their deaths are an open wound. Unless we
create a more just world, desperate men from voiceless communities will
continue to destroy more innocent lives, here and abroad.
If we choose to participate in marches and vigils, we can't afford to be
self-righteous. We've got to stay humble. The CIA played a role in the chain
of events that made possible these terrible attacks, but chanting "CIA
kills" sounds as if we place a higher priority on gloating and being proven
right in our opposition than in recognizing how profoundly America is now
stunned and wounded. We need to make clear that we as well want their
perpetrators brought to justice. And we need to make our views
heard--whether through marching, writing letters, making phone calls, or
initiating discussion and debate in our local churches and temples, PTAs,
city council meetings, Rotary Clubs, and with coworkers, neighbors, and
friends.
We can never know every facet of this situation, nor every detail of how our
government responds. We may not know whether our actions will prevail. But
we need to say what we think, even if it ends up drawing heat. This means
reaching out to those who disagree with us on how to respond to this brutal
cataclysm. It means acting with enough faith and strength to keep on raising
the difficult questions, demanding paths that give our nation a chance to
break the endless cycles of vengeance. For the more difficult the times, the
more true patriotism means taking responsibility for our government's
actions.
Paul Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a
Cynical Time [St Martin's Press, www.soulofacitizen.org] and three other
books on citizen involvement with war, peace, and social justice issues.
He's written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times,
International Herald Tribune and the Christian Science Monitor.
###