A time for restraint

Terrorism does not happen only to the United States, nor is it perpetrated solely by Islamic fundamentalists. Widespread retaliatory bombing by our government will clearly do nothing if not engender even more hatred between human beings and, as a result, will inspire even more animosity, fear, ill will and terrorism. There is no way, in spite of what President Bush may say or think, to eradicate terrorism worldwide. Tomorrow's terrorists may be college students in America today. They may be from the American heartland, from Ireland or Spain, from Eastern Europe or Russia, from Australia — or from a country we've never heard of. Or they may not have even been be born.

Tuesday's terrorists felt that such monumental wrongdoing had been inflicted upon them, their families and their way of life by the United States that such calamitous action was the only remedy. Murder, especially of Tuesday's scale, is nothing short of evil. But hatred, not evil, begets terrorism. Thus, at this moment in which emotions are understandably running wild, the question we must ask is not "Who?" but "Why?" We must attempt to diminish hatred, rather than tilt at the windmills of our collective enemy, Evil. We must instead ask why so many people feel that they have been so harshly wronged. What has America done to lead these people to the conclusion that murderous terrorism is the only appropriate action? What can we do to prevent it from happening again? We must attempt, before blindly and violently lashing out at easy targets, to answer these questions. And then, when we do, no rational individual can believe that bombing entire nations and their innocent citizens will deter terrorism and bring about a peaceful world. Such a belligerent policy would merely repeat the actions of the small group of radicals that attacked us Tuesday morning.

I do not, for one second, defend the actions of the 19 men on board those four planes, nor those who commanded them, nor the circles of dozens, hundreds or even thousands who support them financially, vocally or physically. What they all did was without question inhumane, immoral and indefensible. Nor would I feel regret were we to take any military action against the people who support them but who were not physically involved in the suicidal attacks. In fact, if feasible, I would wholeheartedly support targeted attacks, and even targeted assassinations, of scores of individuals who contributed to Tuesday's disasters. But to attack large groups of people or entire nations makes us no more just or moral or right than were the 19 who attacked humanity on Tuesday. The fact that the Taliban may or may not be harboring Osama bin Laden should not have a whit of impact on the collective culpability of the Afghani people. The fact that 19 men who appear to be of Arab descent were directly responsible for this attack does not mean that every Pakistani or Egyptian or Saudi or Lebanese or Palestinian can be held responsible, nor that everyone in those countries supported their actions.

The conflation by this country's leadership of the "terrorists who commit such acts and the nations that harbor them" is dangerous, illogical, unacceptable and, in fact, nothing short of a prejudiced and racist statement. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell only want to arouse the anger and hatred of the American people to justify their rash, outdated and hawkish military action. The attacks on New York and Washington were not sponsored by any state. To point fingers at a government for "harboring" certain individuals amounts to a poorly veiled attempt to rally the American people into blind patriotism. Rather than undertake the more difficult and costly task of actually acting against the few guilty individuals, our leaders intend to scapegoat and obliterate an entire nation. Unfortunately, the Bush method is working. In a CNN.com poll of 150,000 people, 82 percent said that the president "is handling the current crisis correctly."

But America is not the only country in this world that matters, nor is it the most just or righteous country. The fact that we possess the capabilities to inflict widespread and destructive violence cannot and should not let a thoughtless sense of obligation to our nation lead us into the temptation of overrunning our paramount obligation as individuals — to be good human beings, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, regardless of race, creed or nationality. Nothing pains me more than to hear people who live in this country announce, as one woman did on yesterday's news, that she is, in light of this tragedy, "not Yankee, not Southern, not Black, not White, but above all else, American." Is she not, above all else, Human? Would she — would our political and military leaders — rather be called Inhuman than be called Arab? Dan Wachtell is a philosophy major from New York. He can be reached at wachtell@princeton.edu.