Trending
To the Journal editor:
As I attempt to comprehend the implications of the Sept. 11, terrorist attack on the United States, I wonder if this event will be remembered as the psychological beginning of the 21st century. The world for Americans changed with this tragic event. As we look back on the past two years, events that occurred before last Tuesday may seem more like a continuation of the optimistic and innocent 1990s than part of the harsher realities of the new century. At this point, it is too early to predict what will occur next. However, there are some questions that should be considered as we approach our uncertain future. The United States will and must respond to this assault on its people, its values and its institutions. As American citizens we must be prepared to evaluate these actions.
With regard to military actions:
Should we attack all terrorist organizations and the nations that support them, or should we limit our initial response to the terrorists and countries linked to this specific terrorist attack?
Once we decide where and when to attack, we will need to ask questions concerning the “proportionality” of our retaliation and our ability to “discriminate” between innocent people and the ones who were involved in the terrorist attack. First, is our response in proportion to the evil that we have suffered or may suffer in the future if we don’t react? Second, is our response designed to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent, or what is an acceptable level of collateral damage? Third, how do we balance the need to limit this collateral damage with the need to limit American military casualties?
Next, what will constitute a credible deterrent against future terrorist attacks? Here we must ask what the terrorists and the groups that support them hold most dear. This question is more difficult to answer when dealing with rational but fanatical terrorist groups than it is when dealing with potentially aggressive traditional nation states.
Military actions must also be evaluated in terms of both their intended and potentially unintended consequences. With regard to unintended consequences, we must ask if we are creating new generations of terrorists and picking fights with terrorist groups that previously were not interested in targeting the United States. If we decide to incur these risks, we must anticipate them in advance and be prepared to respond.
With regard to diplomacy:
Public opinion in the United States vacillates between periods of isolationism and periods of internationalism. Will this terrorist attack prompt us to adopt a “fortress America” mentality, or will we decide to become the “policeman of the world”? How do we strike the proper balance between these two extremes?
Given today’s global economy, can the United States stand apart from the rest of the world if it wants to maintain its prosperity?
To the extent that the United States decides to continue to play a role in world affairs, should it act in a unilateral or multilateral fashion? To what extent should we work through organizations such as the United Nations and NATO? When we decide to work through these organizations, should we approach other member nations as equal participants or as junior partners?
With regard to spending on domestic and military programs:
What are the opportunity costs of the war on terrorism? What domestic programs are we willing to forgo or delay in order carry out the war on terrorism? Is it possible for us to have both guns and butter, and if so are we willing to return to massive deficit spending?
As we examine our military expenditures, what are the threats to American security, and are our current forces structured to respond to these threats? If not,what parts of the armed forces should we spend more on and which parts should we spend less on? More specifically, now that terrorism is recognized to be a major threat to our security what should we spend money on to protect against this danger? Does this tragedy justify spending more or less on the proposed national missile defense program?
Calculations of opportunity costs needn’t be limited questions of dollars and cents. As we consider the danger of future terrorist assaults, which, if any of our rights and liberties must be balanced against the need for more security? We also must ask if the war on terrorism is being conducted without infringing on the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in our country.
Finally, as we consider the underlying causes of terrorism, what can and should we as a nation do to lessen racial bigotry, reduce poverty, support human rights and end regional wars in other parts of the world?
While answers to these questions aren’t immediately obvious, I intend to use them as a template when I as an American voter must eventually evaluate the actions of our leaders.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This letter to the editor was originally published in The Mining Journal on Sept. 14, 2001. Written by Dr. Robert Kulisheck, a Northern Michigan University Department of Political Science professor emeritus. It is re-published here with his consent.