Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Tufts Daily
Where you read it first | Friday, March 29, 2024

Good offers no 'good' alternatives

After reading Emily Good's viewpoint, "Reverse terrorism not the answer"(10/16/01), I was struck by an obvious omission even before I could consider whether what she said had merit or not: she gave no alternative action for the US government to take.

This is because Ms. Good is against taking ANY action against the terrorists. She says she is in favor of "bringing the terrorists to justice." However, she suggests no way of doing this, probably because it is a nearly impossible task. While Ms. Good is clearly against the actions that our government is taking against the Taliban and al Qaeda, she offers no substitutes for the US's current policy, which makes her position untenable.

Ms. Good does no less than equate the US bombing of Afghanistan with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. She terms our attacks "reverse terrorism," when in fact her assessment could not be further from the truth. First, her assessment that we must "look inward and make essential changes in ourselves and the way we live our lives" is exactly right, from the terrorists' point of view that is.

This is exactly what the terrorists want us to do - to change our lives. The truth is that the terrorists don't care whether we change our attitudes towards other people, but rather they want to take away our freedom. The bottom line is that they didn't attack New York City and Washington DC merely because they disagree with our policies. They did so because they hate our freedom, our success, and the American way of life. This is what they want to change. Notice that there were no demands before this attack. There was no call for America to change its polices. This was simply an attack on America, its values, and everything that this nation stands for.

As Andy Leitner and Brendan Brodeur correctly point out in their viewpoint, "Attacks not Cause by Support of Israel" on Oct. 16: "Bin Laden's hatred does not end with the US or Israel. He also urges the overthrow of Muslim regimes that don't govern according to his version of radical Islam. They are seeking to bring about a world dominated by those who subscribe to their radical version of Islam...they consider as legitimate targets the US, those that live by 'western values,' Israel, and those Muslim states that do not govern according to bin Laden's radical view."

The US, being the leader of the free world, has unfortunately taken the brunt of those attacks.

The second problem with this line of reasoning is that Ms. Good is telling me, the average citizen, to change my life as a result of the terrorist attacks. What, exactly, should I do? This also applies to our government. Those who argue that the US leaders must change their policies never really explain what policies must be changed. Our government's current policies may be offensive to some, but they are not the cause for the terrorists' attacks. These two things are not related.

I don't buy the argument that the US government is responsible for the attacks because of its current policies and that the terrorists were justified in what they did. And the fact that Ms. Good gives moral equivalency to the terrorist attacks by insinuating that we brought this upon ourselves is a wrong assumption.

From a strictly strategic standpoint, the US government has to take into primary consideration the safety and lives of its citizens. Leaving ideology aside, the American government has no other choice than to wage a war on the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and on the government that protects them.

We must do all in our power to insure that another catastrophic attack does not take place. The best way of accomplishing this is by taking out (and yes I mean "eliminate" or "murder") responsible parties. If we do nothing, we substantially increase the chances of another attack occurring in the very near future, which simply is not an acceptable situation.

I happen to agree with Ms. Good that the bombing should stop, only because we have accomplished our goals of establishing air superiority and crippling the Taliban infrastructure. Continuing to bomb is pointless.

It is time to send in ground troops and special forces to destroy the al Qaeda terrorist network once and for all. Sending in ground troops will significantly minimize civilian casualties, and they will more effectively accomplish the goal. However, I wonder whether Ms. Good would oppose this move too, because after all, it would be engaging in "reverse terrorism."

It is true that the US must re-examine aspects of its political-economic system that angers a large part of the world. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate our sanctions on Iraq, for example. But to use our policies as an excuse to murder thousands of innocent people is absurd; there can be no just cause for mass murder.

Furthermore, to say that the US is engaging in "reverse terrorism" is wrong. The US is not targeting civilians, which by definition is what terrorists do. To equate the American-British attacks on Afghanistan with al Qaeda's attacks, which purposefully killed thousands of innocent civilians, is absolutely ridiculous.

There is a huge difference between going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties (which, regardless of the results, is what the US government is doing) and going out of one's way to inflict civilian casualties, which is exactly what al Qaeda has done.

If you want to fault our government for something, fault it for not acting soon enough. If we had reacted after the USS Cole attack or the bombings of our embassies in Africa like we are reacting now, the attacks of Sept. 11 might have been prevented. An attack on an American battleship or an American embassy is no less an act of war than an attack on our homeland.

It is a shame that the lives lost in those attacks weren't enough to spur our government to do anything other than bomb a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. I realize that public opinion never would have allowed an all-out war on terrorism after those attacks, however now it is almost completely behind them.

We cannot afford to make the same mistake again, and for this reason our government is justly doing what needs to be done. Or you may fault our government for its former policy of refusing valuable funding to our intelligence agencies, who also may have prevented the attacks by infiltrating the terrorist organization with proper funding for human intelligence. But do not fault our government's reaction now, because, like it or not, it is a just response.

Adam Barrer is a senior majoring in international relations.