Like President Bush or a professional wrestler, Matt Modell gets his point across in short sentences ('Diplomacy not an effective response to terrorist attacks,' Sept. 27, 2001). Modell would like to convince you that anyone disagreeing with the president is living in a fairy-tale world completely out of touch with reality. After all, how could anyone be so stupid as to think that diplomacy could be a proper response to the horrific attacks that occurred Sept. 11? As he pointed out, we tried to be diplomatic after the USS Cole attack and where did that get us? Now it's time to kick some ass. Thank God we have Modell to see through the blinding onslaught of peace-mongering overwhelming our campus and country!
What Modell either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore is that those opposed to seeking vengeance through military action are not asking for the United States to continue down its diplomatic stroll through the Middle East. What is necessary is the exact opposite: a re-examination of our foreign policy and 'diplomacy' from the ground up. Not only did our diplomacy fail to provide a solution after the attack on the USS Cole, it is our very 'diplomacy' that got us into this mess in the first place. Let me make myself clear: I am not rationalizing the attacks or saying that the United States deserved the attacks. They were not rational, and no one deserves such a fate. However, if we continue to deny the effects of our government's foreign policy around the world, we will continue to be vulnerable to attack.
Most people already know, or are finding out, that in the 1980s the CIA trained, supplied and provided funding to both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. The government fully admits this, just as we admit to arming, funding and training Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and a list of other bad guys. But we don't need to go back to the 1980s to find examples of our foreign policy getting us into trouble. Earlier this year, the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million for banning opium production. This was after bin Laden was implicated in the attack on the USS Cole. That the United States had no qualms about giving millions to a government that harbored terrorists and ignored human rights really shouldn't be that surprising. The War on Drugs (you know, the really expensive, unending and borderless war that followed the Cold War and preceded the War on Terrorism), has resulted in billions of dollars and military aid being given to corrupt and cruel governments. From the Cold War to the War on Drugs, the United States has placed short-sighted goals in front of long-term solutions and has sided with and supported the ugliest bunch of thugs you can find. Now Bush wants to lead us down that same path into another murky war. But who will be the thugs that we enlist in this war, and 20 years from now, what horrors will they commit?
Modell says, 'To not strike ... would mean only one thing for America'a high probability of more attacks.' He may be right. But if we do strike, I believe it will create an even higher probability of further attacks. If we attack in retribution, we will be helping bin Laden to achieve his ultimate goal of polarizing the world in two volatile camps. If this occurs, the likelihood of further attacks will become even greater. Modell is half right; U.S. 'diplomacy' will not put an end to terrorism, but neither will military action. Only when the United States decides to stop bullying the rest of the world, both militarily and economically, can we hope to live in a country free from terrorist attacks. As Modell asserts, the 'freedom of speech, our freedom to assemble and to disagree with each other' are 'the principles America was built on.' Later however, Modell declares, 'It is time for everyone on this campus and around the nation to support the president.' I have to disagree.
