The message we send to terrorists

If I were a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer I would be delighted by events unfolding at Princeton. I would conclude that the elite of America's universities are wavering about the Bush administration's promises of a war on terrorism and that student activism could be counted on to gradually erode support for any sustained American effort against terrorism or the states that sponsor it.

A little more than one week after the greatest attack ever made upon U.S. civilians, in which more than 5,000 lost their lives, Princetonians have witnessed many troubling developments. Smoke was still rising from the World Trade Center Plaza when McCosh Walk started to flutter with flyers announcing a "Peace Meeting." Students took advantage of a discussion entitled "Diverse Voices of Compassion" to denounce patriotism as "dangerous" and the United States as "racist," thereby implying that we brought the destruction of Sept. 11 upon ourselves.

Despite the Gallup Poll's report that 90 percent of Americans support military retaliation against those responsible for the terrorist attacks, the Princeton University community doesn't seem to stand with the rest of the country. The administration sponsored a Memorial Service that expressed our heartfelt grief, yet without once calling for a response against America's terrorist enemies. Indeed, contorted efforts to avoid sounding even vaguely warlike seemed to typify the occasion.

Subjected to Peace Marches, and denunciations of what Professor Marta Tienda called "the rhetoric of attack and war," Princetonians might be forgiven if they started to forget the magnitude of the attack perpetrated against the United States. We might be excused for rejecting the theory that in the face of a ferocious assault, both justice and prudence require that the United States summon the resolve to see the long struggle against terrorism through to its conclusion.

If I were a terrorist, I would draw confidence from recent American history. History shows that America's only defeat occurred when nationwide student activism called into question the moral legitimacy of our involvement in Vietnam and weakened the United States' will to fight. I would know that sustained national will on the part of the United States was more dangerous to me than any number of aircraft carrier task forces, cruise missiles or FBI agents.

Accordingly, I would see the prevailing attitude at Princeton as one of the first cracks in American resolve. I would feel reassured that, despite the American people's current support for firm action against terrorism, public opinion and foreign policy take shape in great part at places like Princeton University, which concentrate a vocal and visible minority of experts and pundits. Though a small fraction of the population, communities like Princeton are disproportionately influential. Simply put, they are where many of the talking heads on TV come from.

If I had been a terrorist, rather than a concerned student, visiting the planning session held by the Princeton Peace Network, I would have smiled. Students spoke of how America should stick to "diplomacy first and last: no violence," and they insisted that any military response to the Sept. 11 attack on the United States would be inappropriate.

The good news is that I'm no terrorist. The bad news is that some of the goings-on about Princeton might really make a terrorist smile. To put it differently, a lot of the things not going on would really please an enemy of the United States — in particular the total lack of any noticeable patriotic feeling in the wake of an attack on America.

Let me make it clear that I support the free-speech rights of the Prin-ceton Peace Net-work. The right of citizens to criticize their government doesn't exist in Iraq or Afghanistan and in all of the other countries that en-able terrorism.

Nevertheless, I would urge the leaders of the Princeton Peace Network to think hard about the consequences of the messages they send.

I wish they would understand the lesson of Munich, that showing weakness in the face of aggression encourages aggression. Alluring as they sound, calls for a reassessment of U.S. foreign policy in the wake of Sept. 11 do nothing to prevent future terror. To address the root causes of terror by, say, reducing our support for Israel or taking a less active role in Middle Eastern affairs would not only be a setback on those issues but more importantly, a clear invitation to future terrorism by any group interested in influencing American behavior.

At the same time, I wish the peace activists at Princeton would see that a firm response to terror will, in the long run, be most conducive to the peace that we all hope and pray for. I hate the thought of war as much as they do. But to forswear a military response in advance would be to undermine even the diplomatic attempts to resolve the crisis that the advocates of peace propose.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

While we pray for a secure peace, let's remember the bottom line. Terrorists want to use force and fear to change our behavior. To let them would invite future terrorism. As importantly, we must not hint that we might give in to terror. That is our responsibility at Princeton and one that I hope all members of the University community will come to accept. Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky is from New York, NY. He can be reached at cr@princeton.edu.