Send to a friend

Ever since the September 11 attacks, it has almost been taboo, within both the U.S. government and the mainstream press, to openly examine and analyze the three specific reasons that Osama bin Laden has given for his holy war against the U.S. government and the American people.

Suppose someone has told me that he intends to kill me. Even though I intend to defend myself by meeting force with force, I'm going to ask him an important question: "Why do you want to kill me?"

Suppose the answer is, "Because I hate you for believing that Jesus Christ is Lord." My response will be to defend myself because I'm not about to give up that belief even if it might cost me my life.

But suppose my enemy says, "I want to kill you because you are having an affair with my wife." The affair would not justify his murder of me, either legally or morally, but it certainly might explain why he's so angry and why he wants to kill me. It would behoove me to have this information because I might decide that continuing the affair is no longer worth it and because altering my conduct might cause my enemy to alter his.

But the only way I can get to that point is by asking, "Why do you want to kill me?"

Osama bin Laden and his coterie of terrorists have given three reasons for their terrorist acts: (1) The stationing of U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, which they say encompasses the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina; (2) The 10-year embargo against Iraq, which, it is reported, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; and (3) U.S. economic and military aid to Israel.

One response might be: "We shouldn't care about their motives for killing -- all that matters is that our government officials kill them before they kill us." But that position is problematic for two big reasons: (1) Even if current terrorists are killed first, wouldn't new ones, driven by the same motives, surface to take their place? and (2) Isn't it possible that the terrorists might kill many of us before our government officials find and kill all of them?

A second possible response is: "The terrorists hate us so much that it doesn't matter what our government's foreign policy is and therefore there's no sense in reexamining it." Even if it is true that the terrorists are motivated by blind hatred, however, is it not always a good idea to periodically reexamine government policies, especially with the thought of terminating those that are not achieving their goals and that are actually producing perverse consequences?

What would be wrong with a reevaluation of the U.S. government's Middle East policy, even while efforts are being made to bring the people who committed the September 11 attacks to justice? Couldn't this result in a better direction for our country -- one that might also alter the mindset and behavior of people who want to kill us? The following questions could be asked in such an inquiry:

(1) Why are U.S. troops still stationed in Saudi Arabia, especially given that the Persian Gulf War ended some 10 years ago? Are the troops really based on Islamic holy lands, and is that really an important religious issue for Muslims? What would be the downside to immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia?

(2) Has the embargo against Iraq succeeded in altering Saddam Hussein's cruel and brutal treatment of Iraqi citizens? Has it prevented him from producing weapons of mass destruction, and might there be a better way to address that problem? Has the embargo really caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, as UN officials contend and, if so, why doesn't that alone dictate its immediate termination? What would be the downside to immediately ending the embargo against Iraq?

(3) Why should the U.S. government continue giving economic and military aid to Israel? Why shouldn't all foreign aid be privatized, which would mean that American citizens would no longer be taxed for the purpose of providing foreign aid to anyone but would be free to privately donate their own money to anyone they wish, including Israel? What would be the downside to depoliticizing foreign aid?

Some might suggest that a reevaluation of our government's Middle East policy would be "appeasing" the terrorists. But wouldn't that be a short-sighted excuse for continuing what is possibly a failed or bankrupt policy and for not trying to find what might be a better course of action for the future?

Some might say that it's not patriotic to question the policies of one's own government during wartime. I say that genuine patriotism involves not a blind allegiance to one's government even in war but rather a love of country that sometimes entails trying to move one's government in a more positive, constructive direction.