-Laurie Anderson, Oh Superman

While driving North on I-45 today, I saw a sign that read "If God is with us who can be against us." My immediate reaction was to recall Charles Krauthammer’s Washington Post editorial ("To War Not Court", 9/12/01) advocating a decisive military response. Conflating God and country, the Houston Chronicle placed below Krauthammer’s article the Biblical verse, "vengeance is mine said the lord." Amid all the flag waving, red white and blue pendant wearing, puffery of government officials like Donald Rumsfeld and the shrill cries of patriotism, I wonder, who is involved in a jihad against whom? I find it ironic that the responses within our own borders mirror the rhetoric of the Muslim fundamentalists. However, upon further contemplation and discussion with others, I was reminded that a natural reaction to fear and attack is to circle the wagons. While palliative, such emotional reactions (if indeed that is all that is behind such behaviors) may actually obscure the real issues. Furthermore, if emotionalism, is allowed to drive foreign policy, we are in big trouble. I do not believe that emotional responses explain all of these behaviors. I would suspect that, in most citizens, fear and ignorance plays a large role. I would also suspect that those who stand to profit from military responses (politically and economically) have a vested interest in manipulating people and information to keep the war spirits high.

On Charlie Rose, Nightline, The News Hour and other news and commentary shows, we have heard a great deal about preparations for war. We are told by the various experts and reporters that some form of military action is the only justifiable response. The media has portrayed the 9/11 attack as an opportunity to begin a renewed fight against world terrorism and have lead to a constant drumbeat for war. However, we hear little from the mainstream media about other possible responses to this terrible attack and the conditions that may underlie terrorism. At least one attempt to do this, Dr. Robert Jensen’s Op Ed article in the Houston Chronicle ("U.S. just as guilty of committing own violent acts", 9/14/01) met with cries of disdain. Jensen’s own boss, University of Texas-Austin President Dr. Larry Faulkner, rang in with his own letter to the editor several days later. In his comments, Faulkner attacked Jensen by labeling his arguments as "foolishness". One could argue that Dr. Faulkner’s response may have been based on genuine patriotic outrage. However, a strong argument could also be argued that his letter was an attempt by the President to ally himself with the UT Board of Regents (which is populated by Captains of Industry and Republican Party politicos) and those ever vigilant corporate grant and gift givers upon whom the UT system is deeply dependent.

In addition to sounding clarion calls for war and patriotism, the media has provided us with endless speculations about when, where, and how to strike at various targets. Further, there has been much punditry about what percentages of law enforcement, military, diplomatic, and intelligence efforts will be blended into the U.S. government’s new elixir against terrorism. However, there has been little critical analysis of the likely systemic effects and side effects of such an approach. There has been little analysis of the degree to which military responses may breed further terrorism and hatred against the U.S; how arrests of bin Laden and others in his clan and any subsequent trial in U.S courts or Hague tribunals could actually result in his canonization to extremist Muslim sainthood; or how further U.S. meddling to alter the balance of power in Central Asia could lay the groundwork for future headaches, stomachaches, and gaping wounds for the U.S. Also, there has also been precious little discussion of the possible long term effects of new law-enforcement measures put forth by John Ashcroft’s Justice Department which could potentially have chilling effects on civil liberties within our own borders.

As hard as it may be, these sad events provide us with opportunities to do some soul searching as to why our we are hated throughout the world and evaluate how the conditions that our government has created provide fertile ground for unspeakable evil. The brutality of our country towards people outside of our borders is well documented and includes the carpet bombing of Indochina, our role in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile and subsequent support for the murderous regime of Augusto Pinochet, the Iran-Contra scandal; our support of murderous dictatorships in Indonesia, our training of despotic paramilitary organizations at the School of the Americas who then return to their country to spread death and terror, our unconditional support of Israel that has committed its own special set of atrocities against Muslims; and even our prior support for the Taliban in our so called "war against drugs". Whole populations have been left in positions of powerlessness, hopelessness and poverty in the wake of U.S. foreign policy. Such desperation provides fertile ground for terrorism, despotism, and opportunism. The promises of these despots lend false hope to the hopeless and a chimerical sense of empowerment to the disempowered.

Our democracy has been and is now under serious threat from both forces inside and outside our country. Yet, the issues discussed above have not been widely discussed or debated within the context of current or past crises. With a few exceptions aside, the media in Houston has been largely silent about these issues. Now, perhaps more than ever, we need alternative media outlets to provide Americans with information upon which we can make well-informed decisions. We need media outlets that will give us the tools to understand our world not from one lens, but from many. We need media that is willing to engage in dialogue and difficult and sometimes uncomfortable debate about issues surrounding the 9/11 attacks and allow debates from all sides. We need a media that instills a democratic tradition for toleration of real differences in viewpoint. This is not easy. It is easier to wave flags, sing patriotic songs, chant slogans, and rally around a common enemy. I think, however, as we have seen with other conflicts, such anxiolytic actions do not provide real solutions and carry big costs in terms of human life as well as long-term stability. It is much harder to look carefully at our own actions, learn from our mistakes, and weigh a wider variety of viewpoints. However, without such a process understanding, democracy and justice will wither, leaving only the use of military force, bloodshed and oppression to flourish in its place.