Comments
of Kimberly Marten Zisk
Associate Professor of Political Science, Barnard
College
Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Good evening. The major point I want to make
this evening is that the terrorists who struck
last week are unlike most terrorists that we've
seen elsewhere in the world and at other times
in history. This is because they do not want
any specific policy changes. Usually we think
of terrorists as wanting something to change,
for example by having additional rights granted
to minority groups in societies, or wanting
a constitution to be rewritten.
But
what Osama bin Laden wants is to destroy the
United States; he has said this repeatedly.
In one recent interview, for example, he said,
"it shall end up separated states and shall
have to carry the bodies of its sons back to
America." He will kill as many civilians as
it takes to accomplish this task. He finances
and trains a large network that is not necessarily
under his centralized control; what others in
the networks connected to him have said they
want is for all "infidels" (including Americans,
secular Muslims, and Jews) to leave lands that
they consider to belong to Islam, in the Middle
East and South Asia.
This
major observation has three related implications.
The
first implication is that the United States
is at war. This is not because President George
Bush has said we are at war, but because Osama
bin Laden and the networks associated with him
will not stop their violent attacks on the U.S.
no matter what policies we adopt. What happened
last week is just the beginning, and the lives
of everyone present in the United States have
changed forever. Last Saturday night we had
some friends over for dinner. One who works
in the financial district said, "They tried
to kill me." I think that sums up well the situation
we are all facing.
The
second implication is that we must use force
in response to this attack. This is for two
reasons:
First,
Osama bin Laden is a bloodthirsty individual;
he has demonstrated in the repeated large-scale
terrorist attacks which he has supported in
recent years that killing people is part of
his basic makeup. He is charismatic enough to
convince others to support him. This means that
as long as he survives, we are all in mortal
danger.
Second,
we must use force in response because these
networks are made up of bullies who operate
according to the rules of violence. If we do
not respond with a well targeted and well thought
out use of force, they will take this as a sign
of weakness, and it will encourage them further.
If we hesitate, it will not open a period of
dialogue and will not lead them to slow their
attacks. Instead it will lead them to believe
that their efforts are successful, and they
will redouble them.
However,
there is a very important third implication
from my initial observation, which we must remember
as well: namely, there is nothing that Osama
bin Laden would like better than to have this
become a war of the United States versus Islam.
If that is what happens, he has won, because
surely that *will* destroy the United States.
At
present we have unprecedented international
support for taking forceful action in response
to these attacks. For the first time in history,
our 18 NATO allies have declared under Article
5 of the NATO Treaty that this attack on the
United States is an attack on all of them as
well, and that they will come to our defense.
The United Nations Security Council, including
Russia and even China, unanimously passed a
resolution last week stating that this attack
on us was a threat to international peace and
security and that we have a right to defend
ourselves in response. Furthermore, both the
government of Israel and Yasser Arafat, head
of the Palestinian Authority, moderated their
stances yesterday and declared a ceasefire in
their ongoing conflict, probably at least in
part to demonstrate their support for us and
their refusal to accept the legitimacy of terrorism.
But we will squander this support, and we will
alienate significant portions of our own citizenry,
if we engage in a thoughtless, massive attack
that kills many innocent civilian Muslims in
Afghanistan or elsewhere. Therefore our use
of force must be judicious and careful. The
rhetoric that was common in the days immediately
following the attack worried me, and made me
think that we would not be judicious and careful
in our response. Yet one factor that gave me
hope even then--something pointed out by numerous
commentators--is that the majority of the people
in the top leadership positions who are currently
responsible for US foreign and defense policy
are Vietnam veterans. They lived through Vietnam
once, and do not want another Vietnam. We can
hope that their advice will influence the choices
that the administration makes, and that the
use of force will be sensible and directed toward
achievable goals.
It also gives me hope that the rhetoric in recent
days has indeed been moderated. President Bush
was quoted as saying yesterday, "What's the
sense of sending a $2 million missile to hit
a $10 tent that's empty anyway?" While the words
themselves may seem a little jokey, they indicate
that Bush is well aware of the risks of an immoderate
attack, and appears to be thinking about a strategy
that is sensibly targeted. Bush also said yesterday
at the Washington Islamic Center: "These acts
of violence against innocents violate the fundamental
tenets of the Muslim faith. The face of terror
is not the true face of Islam." This indicates
to me that there is hope that this will not
become a war of the United States versus Islam.
But
we all need to be aware of the fact that the
violence directed against us is not over. This
was just one strike; more are coming. Life as
we know it in this country has changed, and
we will all have to deal with the dilemmas this
raises for the democratic process as we seek
to ensure our own security and survival.
.jpg)
