As of this writing, an estimated 188 people have been killed as a result of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. Mumbai is an international city, as the victims’ various nationalities attest. A dozen Americans, several Israelis and Britons were among those killed. The attacks struck at the heart of a nation whose political, ethnic, cultural and linguistic pluralism is more controlled cacophony than harmonious symphony.
But if there is a lesson to be learned in the scenes of barbarity offered by the rash of terrorist attacks that has plagued our nascent century, it is that civil morality is far more sustainable than hate.
In his usual timely fashion, President-elect Barack Obama named his security team on Monday. In the wake of Mumbai’s incredibly organized terrorist attack, Obama and his security team, headlined by right-of-center foreign policy wonks like Sen. Hillary Clinton, would do well to heed the lessons offered by our experiences with the barbarity of terrorism.
The barbarism feeds upon fear and hatred; it festers in the open wounds of instability and poverty. It is sustained by suffering and oppression. Al-Qaida’s haven in Afghanistan was possible only due to the deep-seated hatred of extreme Islamic factions toward American culture, as well as Afghanistan’s unstable and backward government.
A wise man once said that men who are unable to control themselves have no business controlling a nation. Gandhi’s words ring true and complement these attacks in reminding us of an incredible American failure. Our sustained response to the post-9/11 world was filled with error and ideology. Thought was subordinated to fear. Our leaders acted with an impunity and ignorance that had us looking back toward the violence and destruction of the crumbling Trade Center towers and not forward to sustainable solutions. We could not control ourselves. We lost our sense of morality amid a sense of entitlement and power.
Those who practice the barbarity of terrorism offer themselves and their causes as a means of sustenance in societies where poverty is pervasive and infrastructure is insufficient. The terrorist group Hezbollah, for instance, prides itself on its ability to provide health care, marriage arrangements and education to many of Lebanon’s poor and disenfranchised.
Yet civil morality will outlast the hatred of such groups. Even now, the popularity of groups like al-Qaida is waning. Their proclivity for killing civilians in Iraq made their efforts there unsustainable. People won’t stomach senseless violence for long, and events like the Mumbai attacks make it increasingly more difficult for states to turn a blind eye to such groups.
Families would much rather have an American university offer their son or daughter a scholarship than be offered a modest stipend from a terrorist group in exchange for their son’s life. One of the first actions by a Secretary of State Clinton should be to declare her intentions to make America the world’s educator vis-?-vis U.S. higher education. Second, a commitment to re-engage in direct diplomacy, even with those we find disagreeable.
Occupying the global moral high ground is essential to security in a world where terrorism has proved so poignant a threat. Obama’s election is the first step in re-establishing the American brand as a symbol of global morality. He represents a renewal and disavowal of America’s unpopular last 8 years. But popularity is fleeting. Just ask Mr. highest-approval-rating-for-a-President-ever himself — George Bush.
When you possess the moral high ground, the world is drawn to your brand or — at the very least — does not actively seek to destroy it. But our nation’s brand has been tarnished with images from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. If Obama wants to reclaim the moral high ground we have lost over the last decade, he would do well disassociate his administration from these images of American barbarism.
The lesson we must learn is that our security is very much linked to our image abroad. Could a kinder, gentler, more likable India have avoided the senseless violence that has recently shaken its democracy? Probably not. But will it be harder for future terrorists to find a safe haven from which to organize attacks on American soil if the American brand is held in global regard? Certainly.
An emphasis on civil morality, in lieu of American military dominance, would send a strong signal to a world that has grown weary of American dominance, yet eager at the promise offered by the new administration. Let’s just hope the right-of-center crew President-elect Obama is gathering can stomach such a concept.
Gerald Cox ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics and East Asian languages and cultures.
