Editor's note: There has been incessant media coverage of last week's terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., but it seems that many questions have gone unasked or unanswered. We've collected some perspectives that we think address some important issues, as well as general reflections. We're also providing some Web links for people who want more information on some of these issues.
In the week since two planes flew into the World Trade towers and another plowed into the Pentagon, the media have given Americans lots of words and images but little understanding. We have death-toll estimates and vague rhetoric about retaliation from the president, but are we any wiser?
The man being pegged the country's "prime suspect," Osama bin Laden, has been vilified (rightly, if he is responsible for the attacks) without much attempt made to understand his beliefs or those of his followers. Afghanistan has been targeted as an enemy for harboring bin Laden, but few media outlets have stepped back to look at bin Laden's history and report that the CIA played some role in creating him. And few newscasters are reporting that there are any alternatives to massive military campaigns.
"This issue is much more complex than it seems to be," said Nirmala Salgado, an associate professor of religion at Augustana College who saw terrorism in her home country of Sri Lanka. "How does one understand terrorism?"
Salgado said oversimplification creates a host of problems. One side is labeled as right and the other is wrong, while the truth might be subtler. "We get into this mode of dualities, of what is good and what is bad," she said. "If you demonize the other, you never understand it."
While the actions of the terrorists are despicable, their grievances against the United States might have some valid basis.
Robert Haak, an associate professor of religion at Augustana, added that Americans haven't tried to understand why terrorists have attacked us or why many countries in the Middle East resent the United States. He said that America needs to answer one basic question before it will begin to understand the reasons more than 5,000 people were killed in New York City, Washington, and rural Pennsylvania: "Why do they hate us?"
Our first reaction has been to label the terrorists insane - "It just shows we don't understand these people," Haak said - but their complaints with the West and the United States bear consideration.
Historically, the West has imposed its values on the Middle East, Haak said, and the result has been resentment in much of the world toward the United States. Many Muslims in the Middle East feel that America has destroyed their culture and values with military intervention and the introduction of American food, dress, television, and movies. This cultural invasion "is unwelcome, but it comes in," he said.
"We've spent the last century going in and out of other countries as if our righteousness was self-evident and transparent," said John Guidry, an assistant professor of political science at Augustana College. Other countries don't necessarily view it that way, he said.
Ironically, what seems the most likely American reaction - massive military strikes - will only exacerbate the problem, Haak said. "What it'll do is drive a further split between Middle East and Islamic culture and the West," he said. "That will happen for sure. ... They'll say, 'Yep, here it comes again.'"
Rather than imposing American will on the region, he said, "We've really got to take that culture seriously and work to understand it."
Guidry stressed that it's important to bring people in the responsible terrorist network to justice, but he also said that a military solution will likely work against the United States. Retaliation "is not a threat" to the terrorists, he said. "It's what they want. They're really trying to provoke us into doing exactly what the government's talking about doing. ... They really want us to bomb people like madmen."
The American government needs to ask itself, "What happens after we catch them?" Guidry said. While seeking justice through the courts, the United States could also work toward a long-term solution, Guidry said: The U.S. could use this situation to help build structures within the United Nations to govern international relations.
Such a structure would have teeth and would not just be a puppet of the United States, Guidry said. Building an organization such as this would make the world safer and cement the U.S.'s reputation as a global leader, he added. The downside would be that the country would give up some of its sovereignty.
And while the anger of the American people is understandable, it does not translate well into military action. "We really can't be at war with something that's not a country," Guidry said. While Afghanistan might be harboring Osama bin Laden, it has already been "bombed back to the stone age" (see commentary from Tamim Ansary) many times over the past 25 years, Guidry noted, and bin Laden's organization is dispersed all over the world. Attacking Middle Eastern countries will only create more enmity against America, he said.
In the week since two planes flew into the World Trade towers and another plowed into the Pentagon, the media have given Americans lots of words and images but little understanding. We have death-toll estimates and vague rhetoric about retaliation from the president, but are we any wiser?
The man being pegged the country's "prime suspect," Osama bin Laden, has been vilified (rightly, if he is responsible for the attacks) without much attempt made to understand his beliefs or those of his followers. Afghanistan has been targeted as an enemy for harboring bin Laden, but few media outlets have stepped back to look at bin Laden's history and report that the CIA played some role in creating him. And few newscasters are reporting that there are any alternatives to massive military campaigns.
"This issue is much more complex than it seems to be," said Nirmala Salgado, an associate professor of religion at Augustana College who saw terrorism in her home country of Sri Lanka. "How does one understand terrorism?"
Salgado said oversimplification creates a host of problems. One side is labeled as right and the other is wrong, while the truth might be subtler. "We get into this mode of dualities, of what is good and what is bad," she said. "If you demonize the other, you never understand it."
While the actions of the terrorists are despicable, their grievances against the United States might have some valid basis.
Robert Haak, an associate professor of religion at Augustana, added that Americans haven't tried to understand why terrorists have attacked us or why many countries in the Middle East resent the United States. He said that America needs to answer one basic question before it will begin to understand the reasons more than 5,000 people were killed in New York City, Washington, and rural Pennsylvania: "Why do they hate us?"
Our first reaction has been to label the terrorists insane - "It just shows we don't understand these people," Haak said - but their complaints with the West and the United States bear consideration.
Historically, the West has imposed its values on the Middle East, Haak said, and the result has been resentment in much of the world toward the United States. Many Muslims in the Middle East feel that America has destroyed their culture and values with military intervention and the introduction of American food, dress, television, and movies. This cultural invasion "is unwelcome, but it comes in," he said.
"We've spent the last century going in and out of other countries as if our righteousness was self-evident and transparent," said John Guidry, an assistant professor of political science at Augustana College. Other countries don't necessarily view it that way, he said.
Ironically, what seems the most likely American reaction - massive military strikes - will only exacerbate the problem, Haak said. "What it'll do is drive a further split between Middle East and Islamic culture and the West," he said. "That will happen for sure. ... They'll say, 'Yep, here it comes again.'"
Rather than imposing American will on the region, he said, "We've really got to take that culture seriously and work to understand it."
Guidry stressed that it's important to bring people in the responsible terrorist network to justice, but he also said that a military solution will likely work against the United States. Retaliation "is not a threat" to the terrorists, he said. "It's what they want. They're really trying to provoke us into doing exactly what the government's talking about doing. ... They really want us to bomb people like madmen."
The American government needs to ask itself, "What happens after we catch them?" Guidry said. While seeking justice through the courts, the United States could also work toward a long-term solution, Guidry said: The U.S. could use this situation to help build structures within the United Nations to govern international relations.
Such a structure would have teeth and would not just be a puppet of the United States, Guidry said. Building an organization such as this would make the world safer and cement the U.S.'s reputation as a global leader, he added. The downside would be that the country would give up some of its sovereignty.
And while the anger of the American people is understandable, it does not translate well into military action. "We really can't be at war with something that's not a country," Guidry said. While Afghanistan might be harboring Osama bin Laden, it has already been "bombed back to the stone age" (see commentary from Tamim Ansary) many times over the past 25 years, Guidry noted, and bin Laden's organization is dispersed all over the world. Attacking Middle Eastern countries will only create more enmity against America, he said.
