I lost my best friend from high school in the plane that went down over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. David, with a manuscript for his first novel in his suitcase, was returning from Israel for the holidays on an early flight. That early flight turned out to be Pan Am Flight 103, which terrorists chose to blow into pieces. At many times since then, I have felt an immense sadness over the unnecessary loss of this young, promising, funny and at times controversial friend. My sadness, of course, will never match that of his father, who aged an extra 10 years in the week between the crash and David's funeral. I am lucky in that I did not lose any close friends or relatives in the recent attacks. Such losses feel inexplicably awful, and our loved ones cannot be replaced.
There are a number of ways to respond to such tragedies brought about by ruthless attacks on unarmed civilians. Anger and retaliation are certainly two very human ways. Short-term anger has some degree of adaptive value, as it helps us to protect ourselves from further attacks. However, in order to formulate a response to tragedy that will work in the long-term, we need to move beyond anger and formulate an intelligent response. In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, I believe that this time has come for all Americans, even those who are still grieving. Some of us need to let the TV stations know that it is time to quit stoking the anger and the fear, so that all of us can do some meaningful thinking.
It is hard, and even dangerous, to oppose the military actions now being taken by the U.S. government. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., was the only member of Congress to oppose giving President Bush the wide-ranging military latitude he is now exercising. She made her vote on principle, based on her appraisal of history and in particular upon her appraisal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that resulted in the escalation of the Vietnam War. For her vote, she received death threats and hate mail.
I don't categorically oppose all forms of military action that can be taken against terrorists. There may be a role for special forces and elite units in rounding up confirmed terrorists and dismantling their bases of operation. Declaring war, however, on nation-states that 'harbor' terrorists is counterproductive to our interests as U.S. citizens and violates international law.
As a nation of people who must live in a larger international community, we do not need any more innocent civilians dying at the hands of our military. The Clinton administration's decision to bomb a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan is a perfect example. With limited intelligence evidence, the military decided to target the only pharmaceutical plant in this country, one that was manufacturing drugs to combat some of its most dangerous diseases.
To my knowledge, neither the previous administration nor the current one has taken action to replace the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Some researchers estimate that 30,000 people have died as a result of lost medication from this plant. To this number, we must add the 500,000 ordinary civilians in Iraq who have died in the aftermath of Desert Storm. And to this toll, we must now start adding the Afghani civilians who are wounded and dying as we speak. To those who wonder why people hate the United States, I can only remind them that this type of situation breeds resentment among everyday citizens'citizens who have much in common with those who worked at the Twin Towers.
Part of what the university brings to all of us is the wisdom to look beyond our noses. I have not heard a single person blame the United States for the terrorist attacks that took place Sept. 11. However, to deny that these attacks took place in a context which has political, economic and cultural dimensions represents plain ignorance stoked with anger. The vitality of our intellectual community can only survive when we actively seek to understand this multi-faceted context. If our analyses lead us to a critique of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia, then it is our right and our responsibility to speak our findings.
I don't write these statements to impose my view of an intelligent response upon you. Rather, I write because I believe there needs to be space in this community for people to start working on new intelligent responses to terrorism and the conflicts taking place in the Middle East and South Asia. One role of the university is to tolerate dissent, so that new solutions to problems can emerge. It is not our duty as intelligent citizens to simply rally behind the president. This is an anti-intellectual response and should be offensive to all of us.
In addition, we should all be concerned about a recent initiative undertaken by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., that would freeze the issuance of visas for international students coming to the United States. One of the suspected Sept. 11 hijackers may have entered the country on a student visa, and this has now become a reason to freeze visas for international students. Visas for international students provide opportunities for these students, and provide opportunities for native students to learn about other backgrounds and cultures. In addition, the international-student visa program builds a foundation for international cooperation on all sorts of intellectual, political and economic issues. This international cooperation is now vital to our survival.
Stop the bombing. Start the thinking. Build a better world.
