The Constraint of Terrorist Moles
With now more than three weeks since the terrorist attacks on America, we have a degree of perspective. Our tempers our cooled, our minds are keener. We can see that what's most important is making sure that this sort of thing never happens again. Our second priority is to see to the needs of those who suffered losses in the attacks. And third, we want to see those responsible — planners, funders, supporters, endorsers — punished to the limits of human recourse.
There are several reasons to follow this approach. It is morally right. It honors those who fell to this needless, mindless brutality. It enables retribution and ultimately a sense of balance in the course of human events. Perhaps most important is that it is the safest, most logical course of action, since while we have been unable to infiltrate the terrorist organizations, they have likely got moles in all of ours — the CIA, FBI, and NSA, and all the other letter jumbles that spend huge sums to be left in the dark. Since the alphabet organizations would know of our plans, so would the terrorists.
We must realize that in order to have the free and open society that is our raison d'etre that we simply cannot begin to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks by dint of cunning or force. Committed people can blow themselves up along with thousands of others next to a cruise ship. Or in a tunnel or on a bridge. Our borders are breath-catchingly porous, to people, drugs, and weapons. Why not a nuclear device? They can't be stopped.
So if attacks can't be stopped strategically and tactically, then they must be prevented socially and politically. That is, we must either raise the price beyond any sane measure -- and remember, we're not dealing with sane people here -- or we must eliminate their motivation. That requires understanding why people would get so mad at us to do something this atrocious. Why did the perpetrators attack us?
What troubles me is that not a single voice has been heard from Capitol Hill asking what was the message sent by the terrorists? How can we begin to uproot the cause of the hatred that would promulgate such despicable acts if we refuse to ask the key question, why did they do it?
Ostensibly it appears to be disenchantment with our policies toward Muslims, predominantly in the Middle East, though we have certainly been positioned against Islam in many places at different times for various reasons. Are those reasons valid? Are they worth what we saw on September 11th? I would suggest that the answer to the second question at least is clearly no. And I think the answer to the first question is that the United States has asked in infuriating ways, siding with oppressors who have been brutal in their sublimation of whole peoples in their purview.
We must begin with the premise that if we don't want these terrorist attacks to continue, since we can't stop them, we must stop provoking them. Sure, hawkish types will claim we're giving in to the terrorists. Hardly. That we listen to their message is hardly capitulation. What if we want to do the right thing, and it happens to be what the terrorists want, should we do the wrong thing instead? Remember, the first task is to prevent a repetition of the terrorism. It is only the third task to avenge the damage that has been done.
We must now make the right decisions for the right reasons. It is the only way to get what we want.
And that's SetonnoteS...I'm Tony Seton.