Similar to the months following 9/11, the reactionary period regarding the impending action against Iraq has ended, leaving us with the reality of it all.
My reactions to 9/11 and to Iraq were decidedly leftist: We should not wage war with Middle-eastern countries because not only is war wrong, but it also polarizes the global society into East vs. West, Islam vs. Christianity, etc. We should seek understanding rather than bombing in response to terrorism. We simply should not step on anyone else’s toes. While these ideas reference some valid points they are incorrect when taken at face value.
Terrorism, as difficult as it is to track down and define, cannot be allowed to exist. Although I tend to agree with some of the terrorist’s qualms against American foreign policy, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of killing a nation’s civilians in order to make a point or to appease your God. Terrorism can be seen as analogous to rogue criminal activity — it simply cannot be allowed. Of course, it cannot be quenched completely, but a strong attempt must be made to stop it. Allowing the Taliban to exist goes against this, and allowing Saddam’s Iraq to exist goes against this.
Of course dethroning Saddam will create polarity, and his allies will see it as a step towards their own displacement. However, this cannot stop us. The premise of Saddam’s regime is wrong, and we need to find some way to deal with him. In turn we must also weed out similarly harmful regimes.
This may seem harsh and possibly a step towards unilateralism. The idea of dismantling large groups of people is upsetting no matter what, but we must remember that terrorists stand for little more than standing against us. They cannot continue to exist. If we start with the biggest villains (i.e., Saddam) and work our way to the smaller ones, the lines will be drawn; those who chose to fight will lose and those who accept the ways of the coming world will not just be saved but be brought into the modern era.
Of course, there will be tension between East and West. There is a strong tendency to think that an attack against Saddam is another strike against Islam. This is simply not true; it’s an attack against extremists. The heart of Islam is not as maligned against Christianity as the media might lead us to believe. In the end, the Islamic population will see that we mean well. Understanding this is crucial to understanding that our policy is not unilateralism.
These are broad, sweeping statements which need to be backed up with specific policies. Our core values, including those of freedom and the right to privacy, should not be sacrificed for a false sense of security. I thoroughly recognize terrorism as a threat but I do not feel that restricting our freedoms is the correct avenue for attaining that. I’m not going to specifically discuss such policies but I will say that restricting our personal freedoms is a step in the wrong direction. If the United States is to be a world leader it must set a good example.
We must be careful about how we define terrorism, we must be careful in our attempts to destroy it and we must be certain to have widespread support — in the East and West. We cannot forget that terrorism can hurt us but will most certainly not destroy us, and we must treat it as such. Terrorism should not be seen as a threat to our way of life but as an obstacle in creating a global community.
This is where my doubts begin. I’m not certain that the Bush administration is giving these issues the respect they deserve. I feel that they understand the overall issue but are missing some of the details. So far the rhetoric from the administration has been haphazard — we do not want to advertise a war-mongering attitude — however, its actions have been much more reasonable. I could do without the rhetoric, but as long as the action is constructive, I will support it in the end.
The trend towards globalism is already set — the United States cannot stand alone on important issues such as this but must gain global support. Support from the UN would be useful, but is unlikely — it was created under a different world order that is about to be a thing of the past, and we must treat it as such. I would not go as far as calling the UN “irrelevant,” but it has often shown to be ineffective.
I readily admit that America and Western society have their flaws, but I challenge anyone to find a better alternative. The fact is, that terrorism will be unseated, globalization will proceed and we will ultimately win. It will not happen tomorrow, but it will happen.
David Little([email protected]) is a senior majoring in biochemistry.
