Resources
AlterNet
American Friends
Common Dreams
disinformation
FAIR
Hudson Mohawk Indy Media
Inst. for Global Communication
MediaWorkers Against War
MoveOn.org
Peaceful Justice
Protest.Net Calendar
truthout
yes!

Ashokan Reservoir News

Alternative Energy Sites

Islamic History Sourcebook

International News
News Sources Guide
Middle East Times
BBC News
The Guardian
Frontier Post Pakistan
Jordan Times
Jerusalem Post
The Nation
ChristianScienceMonitor

Local Media
WAMC
WKZE
WDST
WRPI
ALBANY Times Union
ALBANY Metroland
KINGSTON Daily Freeman
WOODSTOCK Times
POUGHKEEPSIE Journal
MIDDLETOWN Times Herald Record
Regional Network News KINGSTON

Charitable Organizations

Commentary

Unraveling anti-Americanism: the truth is our hope, not our enemy
© Kristin Young Christman October 6, 2001

It’s a tradition in times of war (as well as in marital discord and politics) for both sides to further polarize each other by making each other out to be even worse, more extreme, and more unreasonable than is truly the case. Such exaggeration and skewing of the truth is a double-edged sword. It may succeed in making the enemy look sub-human, but it diminishes the likelihood of ever achieving peace with the enemy. After all, if one denies that the enemy has any iota of reason or morality, how can one find common ground to begin negotiations? If one then puts off negotiations until after the battle, the hatred and loathing engendered by war make negotiations even less likely. The supreme goal of winning world peace and justice becomes displaced and often undermined by the lesser goal of proving that the enemy is weaker and completely wrong.

Since 9/11, it is common for us to hear that the terrorists hate us because they are evil and hate freedom. Painting such a simple and vague picture is clever for rallying a crowd but not practical for solving a problem. Such a description dismisses the fact that many Arabs/Muslims hate Americans for perceived harms inflicted upon them. Instead of enabling us to get inside the enemy’s shoes to get some idea of why he would commit such horror, the rhetoric pushes us further away from comprehending the enemy mind. I am not at all encouraging the softening of hearts and joining of hands with terrorists to make friends. I am speaking of the practical need to figure out what makes the enemy tick in order to make sure that no more such enemies are produced.

The most critical concept to lay open and discuss, not to hide, is that the terrorists may have had motivation that to them seemed reasonable. They may have thought that they were the ones seeking revenge and doing justice. We should be happy if we find that the enemy has a grain of reason and morality behind his motivation. It is the existence of this grain that provides common ground that can enable both sides to work towards peace.

If the enemy hates the US because he is evil and hates freedom, we can neither appreciate nor understand these reasons. If, on the other hand, the enemy hates the US because he feels, correctly or not, that we harm his people, that is a reason we, as humans, can relate to and appreciate, for we too would fight if our people were threatened. It is also a condition that we may have the power to remedy through either changing our behavior or changing misperceptions. Thus, everything’s not neatly divided between evil and good, black and white; the shades of gray must be understood, not ignored, for their existence provides hope for future world peace.

Unfortunately, anyone who attempts to find a grain of truth in the terrorist’s motivation is often unfairly accused of justifying the horror of 9/11 and basically siding with the enemy. Frankly, I feel that those who try to unravel the enemy’s mind in an attempt to eradicate terrorism and save American lives are more patriotic than those who support a purely punitive campaign that may put Americans at heightened risk of terrorism and may result in the unnecessary deaths of many American military personnel. I am not trying to start a fight about who is more patriotic, I am just trying to explain that attempting to get inside the enemy’s shoes is patriotic, not traitorous.

With regards to 9/11, we will and must adamantly maintain the innocence and goodness of those who were murdered. We must condemn the sadism, ethnocentricity, bigotry, psychological and hormonal imbalances, power-lust, and whatever other cruel traits that compelled the terrorists to kill our loved ones. But we must recognize that the terrorists, and, even more importantly, many non-violent Arabs/Muslims, share the common sentiment of anti-Americanism.

Our leaders should not condemn anti-Americanism as evil; they should only condemn killing as evil. If we ignore or dismiss anti-Americanism as unfounded, we would be engaging ourselves in a dangerous misperception that could undermine our mission of eradicating terrorism. If our nation instead chooses to analyze the causes of anti-Americanism, we will be able to equip ourselves with one of the most powerful methods of eradicating terrorism: eliminating the perceptions and conditions that lead a person to become a terrorist.

Our government’s current campaign to protect us from the terrorists is important and, believe me, appreciated. But its tragic flaw is that it focuses only on those methods that prevent a terrorist from executing his schemes. If we were to add "analyze and reduce anti-Americanism" to our campaign plan, we could focus on a method that prevents people from becoming terrorists in the first place! While evil people will continue to be born, these people would not have anti-Americanism available as a tool to lure a large following of violent followers and non-violent supporters.

Our addressing anti-Americanism is not the equivalent of admitting that US behavior bears most of the responsibility for causing terrorists to feel the way they do. I emphasize that personal problems or conditions not related to the US may (or may not) be the dominating drive in particular terrorists. However, it is hatred of US behavior and misperceptions of US behavior that give a direction to their energies, form a common bond amongst terrorists, and probably, in their own minds, confer a sense of legitimacy to their behavior. Therefore, while personal and domestic problems may or may not be the most powerful forces that create a terrorist, changing our own behavior to diminish anti-Americanism would probably have the most powerful effect on dissipating the network and reducing terrorism.

We should reappraise and modify according to international standards those US behaviors that instigate anti-Americanism, and we should correct any misperceptions and unfair accusations. When assessing our policies, we must recognize that the definition of national self-interest must include our long-term interest in maintaining friends and our global interest in world peace and justice. We must learn to understand that there may exist a bell-curve in which national wealth and power protects our life and liberty only up to a certain point. Excessive national wealth and power gained at the expense of other peoples may jeopardize our life and liberty. We must recognize that the definition of national self-interest must include the interests of all Americans, not just those who have money and power.

It is not effective for national self-interest to be considered in any narrower sense. It is possible that our leaders have evidence that a campaign of analyzing anti-Americanism and re-examining US behavior would be equivalent to rewarding terrorists and, by sending the message that "terrorism works", would escalate terrorism. This reasoning may be logical. However, it is also logical to think the reverse: that not addressing the causes of anti-Americanism will really anger terrorists and make another bomb go off.

In fact, it is possible that addressing anti-Americanism may be a strategic tactic in that it would provide terrorists and their supporters with a means to save face and retire from their campaign in good standing amongst their followers. If we respond only with threats and violence, terrorist leaders and/or the Taliban government may not want to appear weak to their followers and thus will continue their campaign against us. If we change a policy to their benefit, they can tell their followers that they’ve achieved their goal and call it quits. When addressing terrorist interests, however, it is important that we take care not to simply appease terrorists and give in to their demands. That would only be nurturing a bully. We must modify our policies according to impartial international standards rather than according to terrorist demands.

We are fortunate that it may be within our grasp to be able to eradicate much of terrorism without killing more lives. As in any human relationship that has gone awry, if one finds that one can improve the relationship by changing one’s own behavior, that the other person doesn’t have a monopoly on guilt, one is empowered to make a difference. After all, it is easier to change oneself than to change another person. Unfortunately, some mistakenly consider a reappraisal and modification of US policies to be the equivalent of blaming ourselves or justifying the deaths of 9/11. Others seem to have replaced the mission of eradicating terrorism with the higher priority of maintaining a sense of pride.

I’d rather be happy than proud, especially if that pride exists only because I refuse to see my imperfections. Believe me, if I get bombed by a terrorist, I’m not going to die with a smile on my face saying, "Well, at least we maintained our dignity. " Moreover, most Americans know that the US harms other peoples in some way or other and we would only feel tremendous pride in ourselves, our nation, and our leaders if our nation amended any harmful policies and became a more popular nation.

Everyone says that 9/11 has united Americans as we all display our flags, but we also know that people are hanging their flags for adamantly different reasons: sorrow, morality, hope, democracy, pride, war, peace, revenge, ethnocentricity, freedom, tolerance, patriotism and nationalism. We would be more united in our response to terrorism if we all knew that our nation is completely fair and helpful to other nations. We would be more united in pride of our nation and admiration for our leaders if our leaders worked to reduce anti-Americanism.

Unraveling the roots of anti-Americanism as a method of reducing terrorism would provide an excellent and admirable example of 21st century leadership. We could provide a 21st century approach to a 21st century campaign and focus our efforts on policies that will change peoples’ minds, not destroy their lives. We could be a role model to the world and demonstrate how a civilized nation solves problems. We could then become a SUPERpower in the full sense of the word, not just the military and financial sense.

We have heard supposedly united Americans jump down each other’s throats on the radio as they try to voice their opinions. We have read how peace protestors have burned the flag and how police have used pepper spray on protestors. Americans, too, are vexing and polarizing each other rather than trying to find common ground. Our leaders need to abandon the rhetoric of half-truth that polarizes opponents within our nation and between our nation and the enemy. Our leaders need to use truth to lead us to common ground that will be a foundation for achieving our mission of world peace and justice.

To comment or reply to this article, contact the webmaster.