Let the Debate Continue

I was a little puzzled about why some kind emailers called my recent article on 9/11 "heroic" and "courageous." Then, the hate mail came. Now I understand. Some people’s version of America is a country where you can say anything you want as long as you agree with them. If not, you are invited to leave the f___ing country. No thanks. I was born here and will die here. As I glance around the globe, there is no place I’d rather be. And to be perfectly honest with you, I have seen most of the United States and treasure it, but I like Buffalo just fine, thank you. Right now, it’s a beautiful late summer day, cool and sunny.

Those who have reacted with such rancor to my article, and similar articles by Lew Rockwell, Harry Browne, Justin Raimondo, and others, are confused and frustrated because they are unable to refute us. One does not "justify" terrorism by explaining its roots. When Milton Friedman argued that drug prohibition encourages drug dealers to murder each other, he was not morally justifying these murders. He was only offering a logical and empirical explanation for them. The view that terrorism is a reaction to prior violence by the state is a scientific judgment, not a moral one. Nor is it a knee-jerk reaction to the recent tragedy. We have all held such views for many years. I described terrorism as a reaction to prior governmental violence in a speech given in 1993. Am I barred from repeating this long-held belief now?

I have no moral or legal qualms about tracking down the co-conspirators and punishing them. The prospect of punishment, however, will not deter those who would fly a plane into a brick wall. Further, I have little confidence that the "war" now declared will be limited to bringing the perpetrators to justice. The larger-scale strike into the heart of the Islamic world now being planned by the War Party is likely to increase terrorism, short-term and long-term, and could very well evolve into a world war, even a nuclear war. In the meantime, war is the health of the state, and the government that failed us in the first place, stands to benefit with a tremendous surge of new powers and new taxes that will take decades to roll back.

These propositions are difficult to refute; hence, the rancorous response, short on argument, long on insults. Our opponents are thereby guilty of two logical fallacies: the ad hominem attack and begging the question (assuming as true that which was to be proven). They attack the man, not the argument. More importantly, in the process, they also implicitly beg the question. Assume for the sake of argument that we are right; that these terrorist attacks and others like them are the result of our decades-long policy of violent foreign intervention. Assume the corollary, that a wide-scale violent military response with lots of civilian casualties will only result in more terrorism. Now, on these assumptions, are we not duty-bound to speak out? Would we not be cowards and traitors to the republic we hold dear if we remained silent? Are not those who would savage us and invite us to leave the country the real enemies of that republic? If all that is true, then the rancorous response begs the question by assuming, without proving, that our views on the matter are false. I say, let the debate continue over the merits of our globally interventionist foreign policy and its role in encouraging terrorism, one-sided as that debate has been.

Watching the War Party gleefully gear up for a full-scale Middle East War, I am reminded that human technical prowess has far surpassed our moral and political competence. For thousands of years, people used brute force to get what they want from other people. Our prevailing political theories and philosophies are still based on the efficacy of governmental force. Recent events suggest that view is now obsolete. The World Trade Center could have been taken out by a modern air force with multimillion dollar missiles. It was in fact destroyed by a few fanatics with box cutters. Now, our political leadership plans to deal with utterly ruthless suicidal terrorists with brute force, a language they understand only when they are doing the "talking". These terrorists want us to use massive retaliatory force; many more of them want to die to become martyrs and to encourage more legions of suicidal terrorists. The use of force as a rational act implies some degree of superiority in its use vis-à-vis the enemy. The use of force makes little sense against those capable of using equal force against you and doing so with absolute ruthlessness. I believe these people will even use force against themselves if need be. If we do get anywhere close to the likely perpetrator, his people will kill him and display the body. With the villain dead, what do we do then? <

Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous – we are now hearing a mantra about the militant Islamic view of the United States. They hate us, we are told, not because of our concrete military and political interventions into the Islamic world for fifty years, but because they dislike our culture and our ideas. This line of argument is very clever. It is virtually impossible to refute. How would one refute it? A public opinion poll? "Would you fly into the WTC if the United States had not intervened into Middle East affairs for the last fifty years, just because you hate American culture?" Thank goodness that Western philosophy provides a procedural solution to the problem. He who asserts a proposition bears the burden of proof. If you claim the real enemy is Western culture, not the more obvious choice, American foreign policy, prove it! I await your arguments.

I prefer to apply Occam's Razor here: "Never multiply explanations or make them more complicated than necessary." I prefer to believe that specific military and political interventions, known to have caused great aggravation among Arab and Islamic peoples in the Middle East, and not abstract philosophical quarrels, have caused these suicidal attacks. These attacks, from the point of view of the terrorists, could make future United States interventions less likely. They make far less sense if they are directed at Western capitalism, Christianity, rationalism, materialism, or even decadence. The only way to wipe out the entirety of Western culture is to exterminate the West entirely. The terrorists lack the means to do so, but they do face an enemy fully capable of wiping out their beloved Middle East. If it’s a philosophical fight to the last man, it makes no tactical or strategic sense, even from the demented terrorist’s point of view. <

Ultimately, we can find out if the terrorists are targeting our cultural ideas or our foreign military and political misadventures. We can either (1) adopt a policy of non-intervention into the Middle East, or (2) lobotomize 280 million Americans. If you haven’t had a lobotomy recently, the choice is clear.

James Ostrowski is an attorney practicing at 984 Ellicott Square, Buffalo, New York 14203; (716) 854-1440; FAX 853-1303. See his website at http://jamesostrowski.com.

May I try?

One does not "justify" terrorism by explaining its roots.

When one's language suggests the blame is other than the perpetrators of the atrocity, one has gone beyond debate to judgement. It is reasonable to react strongly to judgement. We may question our foreign policy - that's the point of terrorism. But we should never doubt that we did not cause the destruction of the WTC. All of those who arranged to fly a plane into the towers caused their distruction. They alone are to blame. As my father would say - this government takes positions and actions I don't like all the time. I don't fly airplanes into buildings because of it.

The view that terrorism is a reaction to prior violence by the state is a scientific judgment, not a moral one.

However, the view that the proper response to terrorism is to begin negotiations with the terrorists in order to understand their point of view and meet their political concerns is a moral issue. Our moral position is clear, as I believe it should be. If you sit down at a table with us as a friend, we will discuss your concerns. If you blow up one of our buildings, we will hunt you down and kill you. As Jeff Jacoby pointed out so well, failure to send that message (on the part of Republican and Democrat administrations) is much more a precursor to the attack than our current foreign policy.

Am I barred from repeating this long-held belief now?

Absolutely not. But don't be surprised if those who disagree with you speak up.

The prospect of punishment, however, will not deter those who would fly a plane into a brick wall.

One of the things we forget here is that the planners and financiers don't fly the planes. They may exploit fanatic martyrs, but they are not fanatic martyrs. If they were, they would be at the controls. If we go after "the ones who did this" as our President said, we waste our time. The ones who did this are ash. We want to go after the ones who orchestrated this. Take away the conductor and you have no symphony, no matter how accomplished the individual musicians.

Whoever did this is no hero and no wild-eyed fanatic. If he were, he would have announced himself and his demands by now. He'd be standing on a mountaintop in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever and shouting, "Here I am! Bring it on!" (looks around) Nope. I don't see him. He is a coward and all like him are cowards. When they learn they can not hide behind the coat tails (or robe tails or whatever) of the young fanatics they recruit, they will find other ways to accomplish their goals, like negotiations.

Further, I have little confidence that the "war" now declared will be limited to bringing the perpetrators to justice.

I don't care if they come to justice, as long as they are rendered inable to continue. This isn't about justice, it's about war. We didn't declare war, they did. We are simply engaging in it. Our goal is to make it impossible for them to continue it with as little loss of life as possible. Discussions of justice are a disservice to the men and women who died on September 11 and I am tired of hearing about it.

The larger-scale strike into the heart of the Islamic world now being planned by the War Party is likely to increase terrorism, short-term and long-term, and could very well evolve into a world war, even a nuclear war.

That's of no concern. We have been engaged and we are capable of fighting or surrendering. If we want to maintain our culture then we must fight. It will evolve into whetever the enemy decides to evolve it into. They are the aggressors and they will aggress. We are the defenders and we will defend. Our defense will be an outstanding offense and it will prevail.

P.S. In case you haven't noticed, it is already a World War. That wasn't our doing, it was our enemy's.

These propositions are difficult to refute;

How am I doing so far?

Watching the War Party gleefully gear up for a full-scale Middle East War [...]

Which channel are you watching? I see no glee, only resolve. In America we don't like to fight. We hold off on fighting longer than is reasonable. It's part of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Like the G-d of the Bible we are slow to anger and quick to forgive. However, we are resolute. Once we have determined to act, we carry out our actions. Failure to do so in the past is why we are where we are today. Again I point to Jeff Jacoby's excellent article in today's Boston Globe. Take a gander.

For thousands of years, people used brute force to get what they want from other people.

It will be so until the end of time. One of the big differences between good men and evil men is their motives. The Islamists are fighting to establish a theocratic world government. The Americans are fighting to establish freedom and peace. I'll fight for that whenever threatened. Will you?

Our prevailing political theories and philosophies are still based on the efficacy of governmental force.

Tell that to Ariel Sharon. He's probably still stinging from Colin Powell's rebuke at his uses of force to protect his people. (For the record, I'm glad Powell seems to have learned that negotiation isn't always an option.)

Recent events suggest that view is now obsolete.

Recent events don't show that view has failed. Recent events show it's time that view was tried.

[Brute force is] a language they understand only when they are doing the "talking".

Oh, like Mohamar Quaddify didn't suddenly become interested in his problems with Chad after Reagan bombed Tripoly. I'd say they understand brute force very well in either role.

These terrorists want us to use massive retaliatory force; many more of them want to die to become martyrs and to encourage more legions of suicidal terrorists.

I'd say right now they want to hide. That's why even Yassar Arafat and Saddam Hussein are talking themselves blue trying to convince us that a strike would be a bad idea. (You a friend of theirs? Just asking.)

The use of force as a rational act implies some degree of superiority in its use vis-à-vis the enemy.

Yep. Moral superiority. To whit - those who use force to retaliate against an outrageously brutal act perpetrated against innocent civilians are morally superior to those who would perpetrate said act. Can you argue with that?

The use of force makes little sense against those capable of using equal force against you and doing so with absolute ruthlessness.

Yep. I'd say if I didn't believe we could hit them about ten times harder we should surrender. You advocating surrender? Not me.

With the villain dead, what do we do then?

As I said before, this isn't about killing the villain. It's about making it impossible for him to continue to perpetrate such acts. Not that I'd mind seeing the perp. turned loose in Central Park. But that is secondary.

They hate us, we are told, not because of our concrete military and political interventions into the Islamic world for fifty years, but because they dislike our culture and our ideas.

Immaterial. They can hate us for any reason they want to. If they want to sit down and talk with us about how we can be better neighbors, we'll talk. They want to start a shoving match with big words, we'll ignore them. They want to kill thousands of our innocents, we'll engage in war. They set the rules and we are not to blame because of the path they chose.

He who asserts a proposition bears the burden of proof.

Here's my proposition. People will do what you reward them for. If you give them what they want in return for them being nice neighbors, they will continue to be nice neighbors in order to continue getting what they want. If you give them what they want in response to blowing up buildings, they will continue to blow up buildings in order to get what they want. Do you need me to prove this?

If it’s a philosophical fight to the last man, it makes no tactical or strategic sense, even from the demented terrorist’s point of view.

Yep. That's why we're going to take it to them. So they'll surrender.

As a side note, I thought your argument earlier was that this was exactly the kind of people they were. Why are you backtracking?

If you haven’t had a lobotomy recently, the choice is clear.

I suppose it's OK if I disagree with you on precisely which of us has had the lobotomy?

Shalom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.