From sangupta@soc.umass.edu
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:04:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sanjiv Gupta
To:
Subject: Bloody Tuesday FAQ

Hi all,

The following is as much an attempt to organize my own thoughts as an attempt to influence others', after reading and debating incessantly over the last few days. It was useful to put everything down .... Comments and criticism welcome, of course.

Cheers, SG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0. HOW DO WE CHARACTERIZE THE BOMBINGS OF 9/11?

What we witnessed last Tuesday was an act of mass murder. As many as six thousand lives were extinguished as we watched helplessly. Many of us awoke the next day sick with grief and horror, our lives diminished by the sudden, deliberate extinction of thousands of innocents. By all accounts these feelings were shared by millions of people all over the world. The media characterizations of this atrocity--savage, barbaric, nihilistic, hateful, cowardly--are entirely appropriate.

The above characterization is not diluted in the least by the fact that the US itself has conducted and condoned similar, or worse, acts. Or by the fact that US imperialism in the Near and Middle East has helped create the conditions that breed such inhumanity (if the culprit is in fact an organization with roots in this region). In no way did the people in New York deserve to be incinerated and crushed for the sins of their government. Their right to life was as sacred as that of people of other nationalities the left usually classifies as oppressed; many of them weren't even American.

1. HOW SHOULD WE CHARACTERIZE THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS?

The same way we characterize their action: savage, barbaric, nihilistic, hateful, and cowardly. That the mainstream media uses these descriptions does not mean they are wrong. That the US itself has committed or backed similar actions does not make these words less applicable.

It is correct and necessary to explain the conditions that create and nourish the terrorists, to point out US culpability for those conditions, and to assert that the US will not be safe until those conditions are changed. But it is not enough. Fifty years ago the popular support for fascism in some countries was explained in terms of the prevailing economic and social circumstances. Yet the left also understood that fascism was an unacceptable product of those conditions. The terrorists, since they don't have standing armies, are not ultimately as dangerous as those fascists, and their class basis is different. But they're just as atavistic, pathological, and chauvinist. The fact that they may come from nations that are victims of US imperialism does not make them less so.

The terrorists represent a particularly backward, reactionary response to imperialism and modernity (again assuming that they originate in the Middle East, which has yet to be proven). That this modernity--especially in the form often imposed by the US--is often callous and exploitative does not excuse their rabid response, even while it might explain it. The left should be careful to maintain the distinction between explaining the terrorists' actions and justifying them.

2. IN SOME SENSE THE US GOT WHAT WAS COMING TO IT, DIDN'T IT?

It is one thing to say that the US should've expected something like this because of its behavior. It is another to hold the US population directly responsible for the crimes of its government, which is what the terrorists have done. The left should not make statements that come anywhere near implying that the victims deserved this kind of collective punishment. Such suggestions are not only morally reprehensible, but also politically counter-productive. Our best hope of changing US policy in the long run is to show the American people that US imperialism does not serve their own interests, let alone those of others.

The example of the Vietnamese leadership during its war with the US comes to mind. Even at the height of the war, during which the US slaughtered several million Southeast Asians, this leadership maintained the distinction between the US govt and the American population, which it correctly viewed as a potential ally. The terrorists, whose nations' suffering has not exceeded Vietnam's (if such comparisons are meaningful), show no such understanding.

3. IS THE US JUSTIFIED IN RESPONDING WITH FORCE?

Yes. It is entirely legitimate for the US to try to bring the murderers to justice, and to prevent them from repeating their actions. If they turn themselves in or are extradited to the US, then the US would not be justified in using force simply for the sake of retribution. However, so long as they remain at large, they have the capacity to organize another attack on the civilian population of the US. Every nation has the right and responsibility to protect its people from such an attack if it can, by force of arms if necessary. Given that there are no international police capable of doing this, the US is fully justified in using force to capture the criminals if possible, and to destroy their organization if not. Furthermore, many other nations realize that the same terrorists could target their territories, and seem to be glad that the US is doing the dirty work.

Those who are pacifists will oppose any military action. Then there are those who will oppose any use of force by the US. Those who are not in either category will have to decide whether to support or oppose the US based on the specifics of any armed action--the quality of the evidence the US presents, how many innocents are killed, the possible political fallout of an extended war, and so on. It is premature for the left to agitate against retaliation on the assumption that it will result in a mass slaughter of civilians; at this writing that seems unlikely.

Some may oppose US action because of their anger at the ability of the US to respond militarily, while other countries and peoples often cannot (especially against the US). This anger is understandable; the asymmetry is grossly unfair. But that does not detract from the US' right to respond in this case.

4. BUT DOES THAT MEAN WE'LL END UP SUPPORTING THE US IN WHATEVER MILITARY (OR OTHER) ACTION IT TAKES?

No. Most countries that support US military action, including its NATO allies, do so under the following conditions: that the US presents evidence against its targets, that it does not kill innocent civilians, and that it addresses the resentment that feeds terrorism. These are reasonable conditions. The US will have to adhere to them if it doesn't want to lose the support of its allies, and of its own population.

5. ISN'T THE US JUST PLAYING INTO THE TERRORISTS' HANDS BY RETALIATING? WON'T MILITARY ACTION GENERATE MORE SUPPORT FOR THE TERRORISTS?

These are real risks. Many left and non-left commentators have pointed out the dangers of armed retaliation, especially if it results in the deaths of civilians. It is also possible that an attack would be futile, either because it doesn't work or because it creates even more terrorists. It is reasonable to decide that these risks are so great that one should oppose a US attack on the terrorists on that basis alone.

These risks should be weighed, however, against those of not responding forcefully to an organization with the capacity to mount further, perhaps deadlier, attacks on civilians on the US mainland. It is possible that attacking one such organization will simply create others. On the other hand, organizations with the alleged scope and finances of the ObL group are difficult to create and maintain. If the US can make a significant dent in its operations, even if temporarily, it should.

Also, the dangers of an US attack depend substantially on its nature. So far it seems that the US is not planning massive air raids on civilian areas, though that might change. The evidence suggests that a US response will take the form of search-and-capture/destroy missions performed by US and UK special operations forces, rather than capture-and-occupy ones performed by large numbers of regular ground troops (which require preparatory bombing). So long as this is the case, the US is likely to keep the support of most countries. While sizeable sections of the populations of Near and Middle Eastern countries will be alienated by any US military response, others (perhaps not least in Afghanistan itself) may support it so long as it stays within these boundaries. (We should also note in this regard that the US is being surprisingly tactful on the diplomatic front, despite the bellicose rhetoric intended mostly for the US population.)

This is the fog of war: there is no way to predict the outcomes of a US attack. If we're not pacifists or reflexively anti-US, we have to decide whether the risks of action are more or less acceptable than those of inaction.

6. WHY SUPPORT AN ATTACK IF IT WON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

As many point out, popular support for the terrorists comes to a large extent from US policies in the Middle East, particularly its backing of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its strangulation of Iraq. The terrorists exploit this justified resentment to feed their own fundamentalist agenda. The US cannot defeat them until it erodes their support by changing its behavior.

But that does not mean that the US should abstain from attacking the particular organization responsible for Sep 11. It is wrong for the left to present short-term and long-term solutions as mutually exclusive. It is one thing to say that organized crime cannot be eliminated by an attack on a particular large criminal organization, that we have to address the structural causes of crime. It does not follow, however, that particular criminals should be allowed to escape, particularly when they have the capacity to commit lethal crimes in the near future.


Back to Against Terrorism.   Email comments to S.G.   To Tom O'D. Homepage.