by Dean Hartwell
Some people compared last year’s September 11th attacks to Pearl Harbor. Some even said they would transform United States and its people.
A year later, the United States still fights a “war against terrorism”, its leaders are still debating what strategy will stop it and most of its people still won’t acknowledge that the U.S. may be, in part, to blame for creating a hostile environment around the world. In short, the nation appears very much as it did shortly after the attacks.
Why didn’t the acts of terrorism cause fervor for war in the way that Pearl Harbor did?
For one, no tangible group of people presented a continuous threat. In 1941, the nation knew that the Japanese had committed the act and that it would strike again without a strong response. In fact, President Roosevelt asked the Congress to declare war upon Japan the following day.
In the current situation, all of the terrorists who actually carried out the attacks died during them. With no one to punish, the U.S. looked for a nation or a group of people to blame. It had to find evidence that a group called Al Qaeda trained some of the participants of the September 11 attacks and link the group to longtime enemy Osama bin Laden to find a target. Though the blame is well placed, the remoteness of the person targeted for blame to the incident makes it hard for the nation to focus its anger upon bin Laden as it did the Japanese.
As for a strategy on stopping terrorism, there is no consistency of policy. The United States has given no declaration of war. And, although President Bush has called for a “war on terrorism” and has also referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the “axis of evil” in January, he has not matched his rhetoric with action as President Roosevelt did by declaring war on, and then invading the axis of Germany, Italy and Japan.
The Bush Administration overlooked the nations that actually pose the biggest threat to the United States. He should have looked at the fact that all of the September 11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and demanded information on terrorism from them before naming the three nations that he did. In the absence of proof that Iran, Iraq and North Korea participated in the attacks, his accusations toward them carry little weight.
Lastly, although the public has rightly seen the United States as the chief victim on September 11th, all public ideas about fault stopped there. After the shock wore off, the nation should have considered the possibility that its own actions may have contributed to the results. Instead, no leader dared bring up the subject, likely fearful that public opinion would not tolerate it.
This lack of reflection may
cost the United States in the long run because it could bring about a greater
understanding of the world. Once the
public understands the how the U.S. support for Israel angers some Arab
nations, it might see the fire of hatred begin. Once the public understands that the United States sometimes acts
to block progress in other nations (like preventing medicine for AIDS victims
in Africa, for example), it might see how the flames of hatred are stoked. And once the public understands the
hypocrisy of the U.S. criticizing other nations for corruption, rigged
elections and other acts of malfeasance, it should not be surprised when people
hurl that fire of hatred right at it.