September 11, 2007

“September 11, 2007”?
by Arthur I. Cyr
Six years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the impacts of the bloody slaughter of that day continue to reverberate. What has been the effectiveness of the American response to this murderous menace?
Most broadly, concerning our nation and population as a whole, there are good reasons for us to feel pride in our collective reactions. Despite the unprecedented shocking nature of the attacks, and the thousands of deaths of civilian Americans as well as citizens of other nations, we stayed remarkably calm.
In contrast, the devastating sneak attack by Japan on United States naval forces at Pearl Harbor Hawaii on December 7, 1941 had severe, continuing repercussions within our social and political life. Intense fear as well as hostility led to the internment and more general persecution of Japanese-Americans on much of the West Coast of the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not initiate internment but cooperated in response to public anger, especially on the West Coast, stirred up in particular by California Attorney General Earl Warren. Pacific combat in that war was particularly bitter and brutal. This context makes all the more heroic the simultaneous service of Japanese-American troops in the European theatre.
Treatment of Japanese-Americans is particularly notorious but not entirely unique. There was less extensive discrimination against German-Americans during both World War I and World War II, and against Italian-Americans in the latter conflict. During the Civil War, riots against the military draft in the North included extensive beating and murder of African-Americans.
Against this backdrop, American tolerance of Moslem-Americans, and Moslems in general, in the aftermath of 9/11 is impressive and noteworthy. Acts of violence were rare, atypical of general sentiment, and addressed with aggressive law enforcement. In a fundamental way, Americans have demonstrated maturity that is both ethically right and practically useful. Al-Qaeda has an interest in promoting generalized Western hostility to the Moslem world along with intimidation within our borders.
More ambiguous have been the responses of the American government to the bloody challenge laid down on 9/11. Surely al-Qaeda hoped that our military response would be immediate, massive and indiscriminate. Instead, Washington rightly focused on overthrow of the complicit Taliban regime in Afghanistan and pursuit of the shadowy al-Qaeda global network, including financial resources. In this effort we had broad support of the UN and our most important allies, including France and other NATO partners in patrolling the skies of North America.
More recently, however, fixation with Iraq has come to dominate American military attention and effort. According to journalist Bob Woodward, Vice President Cheney from the start of the administration was preoccupied with ousting Saddam Hussein. In that process, al-Qaeda became an instrument for preconceived very personal policy desires. In the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, American invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the resulting insurgency, has “set the region on fire”?. Responsibility for this state of affairs, however, does not rest exclusively with the White House. The Congress has effectively abandoned constitutional responsibility for going to war, a point made by Senator Robert Byrd but very few others. Senator John Kerry’s careful ambiguity during the 2004 presidential campaign personified the point.
Americans collectively should feel very good about how we as a people have responded to grotesque mass murder within our borders. We deserve better policies than our leaders have so far provided.

Arthur I. Cyr is Director of the Clausen Center at Carthage College and author of ”˜After the Cold War’ (NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu