Back when this all started (for me), that is of course 9/11, I carried a sign into Union Square that asked "What is the root cause of terrorism?". I thought it was important to ask a question rather than shout a polemic, because the attack had shown me how we were, as a nation, both blind to world politics yet inextricably immersed in it. It seemed clear that if twenty men were eager to give their lives to make a statement about our nation's wrongdoing, then no amount of military power would protect us. The only road to safety was understanding.
Apparently this did not seem clear to our leaders. They chose to shout instead of listen, and then to fight instead of heal. The story is a familiar one, and by now the chorus of dissent is so loud that I don't need to retell it. Instead, I want to ask that first question again: What is the root cause of terrorism? I believe that suffering is the root cause of terrorism, and only that which reduces suffering can make us safer in the long run. If that is so, can military power alone make us safer? In a passive and ambiguous sort of way, I live on the front lines of the war on terror. The rifles in the subway remind me. I checked the wind speed and direction this morning, to know which way I would need to run to avoid a cloud of radiological dust.
Tonight I am thinking about power and its forms. There is military power: essentially the strength to execute one's will despite the contradictary will of your enemy. There is also the power of ideas, which is the power to shape the will of your enemy rather than force it aside. The pen is mightier than the sword, some say; others say actions speak louder than words. I believe that we have come to the point in history where military power alone, while perhaps irrefutably effective in the short term, cannot secure the peace in the long term.
The adminstration has chosen to use military power to secure the peace. Essentially this is a choice to bowl over the will of the enemy rather than change their minds. This antique approach won't work today, and it will become even less effective tomorrow. As technology marches on, weapons get smaller, more destructive, easier to obtain, and harder to control. Fears of a nuclear, biological, chemical, and someday a nanotechnological attack will not be assuaged by destroying nation states or forcing "regime change". Instead, we've got to go deeper behind enemy lines: deep into the hearts and minds of the populations from which our enemies are springing. We've got to change their minds about us. Not by empty propaganda and promises, either; this can be done only by allowing them to participate in world politics on even footing.
Some object that by heeding complaints and making concessions, we are giving in to the terrorists. Yes, the terrorists will have won, in some sense, if we change our policies in response to their violence. But some terrorists must be viewed as extreme expressions of common sentiments, not as evil aberrations that spring from nowhere and will be blasted back there by a Tomahawk or a MOAB. The truth is, in a world where technology and economics increasingly binds together the fates of all peoples, everyone holds everyone hostage. But as the cold war has shown, it is possible to find calm in a balanced arrangement of mutual threat. Terrorism has sprung to life because the balance of power has been tipped; terrorists hold us at gunpoint because they have no other power to hold us with.
But the right way for us to hold each other hostage is not at gunpoint but with consensual government. A global democracy, as utopian as it sounds, is necessary for future peace. But as the whole world knows now, this administration is not interested in levelling the playing field, but believes that our own mightiness exempts us from having to care about what people think.