table of contents - curio.ca...contemporary life in a city that somehow embodies so many human...

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACK Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5In Search of Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7In Search of Root Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9“Blowback,” or the Law of Unintended Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Respecting the Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19An Occasion for Parenting and Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Security Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24The Emergency Measures Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Media Responsibility and Public Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26A Measured Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

October 2001News in Review — 5 —

UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKIntroduction

September 11, 2001, is a date most Canadi-ans and people all over the world will re-member for the rest of their lives. On themorning of that terrible day, four airplaneswere hijacked shortly after departing fromairports in Boston, Newark, and WashingtonD.C., en route to Los Angeles and SanFrancisco. Within minutes, the planes wereviolently diverted from their intended desti-nations and instead directed toward NewYork City and Washington D.C. The twoplanes hijacked from Boston soon appearedin the skies over Manhattan, and to the horrorof thousands of onlookers crashed into thetwin towers of the World Trade Center, thetallest buildings in the United States. About30 minutes later, the plane hijacked fromWashington had returned and ploughed intothe west wing of the Pentagon, the headquar-ters of the U.S. military. The fourth plane,hijacked from Newark, also veered menac-ingly toward Washington, but instead crashedinto a cornfield in rural Pennsylvania, killingall aboard but causing no other damage.

Just over an hour after it was hit, the southtower collapsed in a heap of debris, and lessthan an hour after that the north tower alsofell heavily to the ground. Thousands ofpeople working in both buildings, along withthe passengers of the doomed aircraft, werekilled instantly. Lower Manhattan wasshrouded in a huge cloud of dust and smoke,and the place where the two towers onceproudly stood resembled the site of a devas-tating nuclear explosion. In the aftermath ofthis incredibly horrific event, it was to takethe name “ground zero,” as rescue workersand firefighters risked and sacrificed theirown lives in a desperate and ultimately futileattempt to find survivors. While a few luckypeople were pulled alive from the wreckage aday after the buildings collapsed, after that,hope had all but vanished that any of thethousands trapped beneath the colossal heapof smashed concrete and steel had survived.

What could have caused such a calamity?Almost immediately after the planes strucktheir targets, it became quite clear that thiswas a premeditated act of terrorism directedagainst the United States. President GeorgeW. Bush was whisked from Florida, wherehe had been visiting, and flown under mili-tary escort to a secure base in Nebraska, onlyto return to the White House later thatevening. The finger of blame was soonpointed in the direction of a shadowy organi-zation headed by Saudi-born Islamic militantOsama bin Laden. Although neither binLaden nor anyone else from either his alQaeda group or any other terrorist cellclaimed responsibility for these acts, theconsensus view in the United States andother Western governments quickly emergedthat he was indeed their perpetrator. In aspeech delivered to an emergency jointsession of the U.S. Congress just days afterthe attacks on his country, President Bushdeclared a “war on international terrorism,”and vowed that those directly or indirectlyresponsible for them would soon be pun-ished. In his sweeping indictment, Bush wascareful to include not only the terroristgroups themselves, but also the countries thatprovided them with a base of operations.

The country that quickly became the focusof U.S. and world attention was Afghanistan,whose ruling Islamic fundamentalist Talibangovernment had provided bin Laden and hisgroup sanctuary since the late 1990s. Bushdelivered the Taliban a stern ultimatum:either hand over bin Laden immediately andwithout preconditions, or face the full mili-tary wrath of the United States and its NATOallies. In reply, the Taliban first denied binLaden’s complicity in the attacks, then statedit would ask him to leave the country volun-tarily, later claimed that it did not know hiswhereabouts, and finally agreed to releasehim from its protective custody if the UnitedStates could provide incontrovertible proof

— 6 — News in ReviewOctober 2001

of his involvement in the attacks. Almostimmediately the U.S. government categori-cally rejected this offer. Meanwhile, Paki-stan, Afghanistan’s neighbour and one of theonly states to recognize its internationallyostracized regime, tried its best to persuadethe Taliban to accede to U.S. demands to turnbin Laden over unconditionally before it wastoo late. As tensions mounted inside Af-ghanistan, hundreds of thousands of desper-ate people flocked to its borders with Paki-stan and Iran, hoping to find shelter fromwhat they viewed as an inevitable, and surelydevastating, assault on their country.

In the aftermath to the horrors of NewYork and Washington, which left a steadilymounting death toll believed to be between6000 and 7000, many Americans wereclamouring for retaliation. Support for astrong and swift military response soared inthe United States and found echoes inCanada and other countries as well. ButBush’s war on terrorism was far easier todeclare than to plan or prosecute. The gov-ernments of most of the countries the UnitedStates had once branded as “rogue states,”sympathetic to international terrorism, werequick to denounce the attacks, and totallydistance themselves from the groups allegedto be behind them. This timely manoeuvreimmediately removed any possible justifica-tion for a U.S. military strike against them.For their part, countries allied to the UnitedStates, while endorsing some kind of care-fully targeted military response to terrorism,generally warned against any overreactionthat might result in civilian deaths in Af-ghanistan or elsewhere in the Arab or Islamicworlds. They feared that such an ill-timedresponse would not only provoke furtherterrorist counterstrikes, but also cause theUnited States to lose much of the interna-tional support and sympathy the attacks onNew York and Washington had generated,not least in the Middle East and other pre-dominantly Islamic countries.

By early October 2001, the military forcesof the United States remained on high alertand were massing in the Persian Gulf and

other strategic points in the Middle East. Butdespite persistent rumours that U.S. andBritish special forces were already deployedthere to track down the terrorists, no overtmilitary action had yet been undertakenagainst bin Laden or his host country, Af-ghanistan. Before he ordered the U.S’sformindable military forces into action, Bushtook steps to freeze the financial assets ofgroups linked to international terrorism andoversaw a concerted diplomatic effort tobuild the broadest possible coalition of statescommitted to a campaign against terrorism.As an anti-Taliban faction within Afghani-stan, based in the north of the country, steppedup its campaign to topple the regime, specula-tion mounted that the United States might enlistthis group, or even the long-exiled king, tospearhead an offensive against bin Laden’shosts and drive them from power.

On October 7, 2001, the long-anticipatedUnited States retaliation for the attacks ofSeptember 11 finally took place. Cruisemissiles and laser-guided bombs werelaunched against Taliban military installa-tions in a number of cities in Afghanistan,along with sites believed to be bases of thebin Laden terrorist network. Along with thebombs, humanitarian-aid packages contain-ing food and medical supplies were alsodropped to the growing number of refugeesinside the country. Bush and his close ally,Britain’s Tony Blair, both stated that theprincipal goals of their coalition were thedestruction of bin Laden’s terrorist organiza-tion, al Qaeda, and the defeat of Afghanistan’sTaliban regime. As of this writing, it is fartoo early to determine what consequenceswill result from these military strikes. How-ever, the terrorist attacks on the UnitedStates, the armed response they have elicited,and the international reactions to thesedramatic events have clearly taken the worldinto an unpredictable and potentially dangerousstate at the beginning of the new millennium.

Note: The recent retaliatory actions andother events subsequent to the terroristattacks will be examined in depth in theNovember issue of News in Review.


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKIn Search of Meaning

Like the city it profiles The New Yorker magazine is many things to many people. To itsdevotees the magazine is a source of coherent contemporary thought expressed in the articles,reviews, and fiction it contains. It is also a representation of a very distinct subculture, that ofNew York City. But it is perhaps its literary excellence and unqualified dedication to theeffective use of language in the service of making complex or obscure subjects comprehen-sible that gives this magazine its universal appeal. One does not need to be a resident of NewYork to enjoy The New Yorker, or the city.

The magazine is also famous for its artistic and evocative covers, each an expression ofcontemporary life in a city that somehow embodies so many human realities. The cover ofThe New Yorker in the edition following Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was completely black.Only the title, date, and price revealed which magazine it was.

In this issue, a number of The New Yorker’s best writers wrote about the events of September11 and about the city described by Adam Gopnik in the following words: “More than anyother city, New York exists at once as a city of symbols and associations, literary and artistic,and as city of real things. This is an emotional truth, of course—New York is a city of wackydreams and of disillusioning realities. But it is also a plain, straightforward architectural truth,a visual truth, a material truth.”

• As a class, discuss what Gopnik is saying about New York. In his description,how does he express both emotion and logic? How does he suggest that NewYork is a human community? What is there in his description that is universal?

• After watching this News in Review report, examine each of the following ex-cerpts from articles in the above-mentioned issue of The New Yorker magazine.How does each writer attempt to give meaning to the events?

“The calamity . . . is national; it is international; it is civilizational. In the decadesince the end of the Cold War, the human race has become, with increasingrapidity, a single organism . . . The organism relies increasingly on a kind oftrust—the unsentimental expectation that people, individually and collectively,will behave more or less in their rational self-interest. . . . The terrorists made useof that trust. They rode the flow of the world’s aerial circulatory system like lethalviruses.” — Hendrik Hertzberg

“Suddenly summoned to witness something great and horrendous, we keepfighting not to reduce it to our smallness . . . the destruction of the World TradeCenter twin towers had the false intimacy of television, on a day of perfect recep-tion.” — John Updike

“But even they, the survivors, were stumbling out of the smoke into a differentworld. . . . The problem of the new world . . . will be to reassert the ordinary, thetrivial, and even the ridiculous in the face of instability and dread: to mourn the


dead and then to try and awaken to our small humanities and our pleasurable dailynothing-much.” — Johnathan Franzen

“Bad news is unimaginable, but it keeps on coming and keeps on ending, asdistantly awful or immediately scary wears down into Then and, in time to BackThen.” — Roger Angell

“I am a writer, not a prophet or a political analyst. Like everyone else, I am grop-ing in the darkness. From a writer, people expect a wise word or a joke. But whatcan one say when what is happening blunts the few thoughts that one has? I try toovercome the uncertainty by working every day.” — Ahron Appelfeld

“The disconnect between last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TVcommentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the eventseem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is theacknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’ but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimedsuperpower. . . .” — Susan Sontag

“Even urban geography is destiny, and New York, a long thin island, cuts down-town off from uptown, west side from east. . . . At Fourteenth Street, one suddenlyenters the zone of the missing, of mourning not yet acknowledged. It is, in a way,almost helpful to walk in that strange new village, since the concussion wave offear that has been sucking us in since Tuesday is replaced with an outward rippleof grief and need, something human to hold on to.” — Adam Gopnik

Follow-up DiscussionSome of our greatest artistic works have tragic themes and subject matter, and it is their skilfulrepresentation of tragedy that we respect and study. Writing coherently and in a determinedfashion about tragic events is in itself a coping mechanism and a way to ascribe some redeem-ing factor to the unimaginable. How can reading and writing about this tragedy help us cometo terms with it?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKIn Search of Root Causes

In the aftermath of the horrific events of September 11, 2001, political commentators in NorthAmerica and elsewhere offered a wide range of explanations and interpretations to help thepublic make some sense out of what seemed an incomprehensible and terrifying occurrence.One of the main questions analysts focused on was “Why?” This single question led tomyriad further questions. What factors could possibly lie behind this dreadful and murderousact? Why would a group of terrorists choose the World Trade Center and the Pentagon astheir targets? Why did they not identify themselves, warn their potential victims beforehand,make demands, or claim responsibility for their actions? Why were two such prominentsymbols of the economic and military power of the United States of America singled out forsuch a devastating strike? What role, if any, had such factors as U.S. foreign policy, especiallyin the Middle East, fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, hatred of the West, or the unaddressedinequities between the world’s “haves” and “have-nots” played in bringing this terrible de-struction to pass?

This quest for possible root causes of the terrorist attacks soon became an issue in and ofitself. Some analysts believed it was essential for Western policy-makers and others to investi-gate any factors that might help account for the motivations and actions of the terrorists. Onereason for this, they argued, was that if such root causes could be successfully identified,addressed, and possibly even redressed, then the likelihood of further terrorist violence mightbe significantly reduced. On the other hand, there were those who claimed that it was point-less at best, and possibly even dangerous at worst, for people in the West to spend too muchtime trying to understand the mind-set of those who committed these dreadful crimes. In theiropinion, the attacks on New York and Washington were the work of fanatics, obsessed with anarrow-minded view of religion and a visceral, unreasoning hatred of modernized, secularWestern societies in general, and of the United States in particular. Some even went so far asto imply that those who pointed to specific root causes that included criticism of past U.S.foreign policy in the Middle East might even be playing into the hands of the terrorists them-selves, by appearing to justify the criminal actions they committed.

What to Believe?For the average news consumer it can be very difficult knowing where the truth lies whenexamining the point of view expressed in the media by political commentators, analyses thatspan the political spectrum. The answer, of course, may be far more complex than a singlepoint of view. Below is a representative sampling of a range of opinions that have beenexpressed on the issue of the root causes of the terrible events of September 11. These sum-maries represent points of view that have been expressed via many media by highly regardedpolitical commentators who publish frequently in influential newspapers and magazines.

Point of View One: There can be no excuse for terrorism.

The whole notion of “root causes” for terrorism is based on false logic. Those who righteouslycondemn the acts of the terrorists while at the same time earnestly seeking the real or allegedroot causes behind their unspeakable acts are naïve dupes who run the risk of playing the


terrorists’ game. The real root cause of terrorism is the evil and malice that lie in the dementedbrains of the terrorists themselves. Those who persist in trying to dig up any other kinds ofroot causes that might suggest the terrorists had any kind of legitimate motive for their mur-derous actions are guilty of “pulling a Yasser Arafat”—that is, publicly claiming to the worldthat one rejects terrorism while at the same time threatening further violence unless one’sdemands are met.

Root causes is therefore a dishonest cover-up phrase, designed to play into the hands of theterrorists in the Middle East and their sympathizers around the world. It is simply not true toargue, as some on the left have done, that the real root cause of the evil deeds of September 11is Third World anger at the smug prosperity and overbearing attitudes of the West, especiallythe United States. If this were the case, then events like the attacks on New York and Wash-ington would be occurring every day.

Whatever the potential justice of one’s political cause, once one resorts to terrorism he or sheis no longer deserving of any support from civilized people. That withdrawal of support is theonly proper response to terrorism, and in fact the only one that effectively addresses its realroot cause: that is, human evil. It is simply not the case that “one person’s terrorist is anotherperson’s freedom fighter,” as Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat once claimed. One cannotcompare the legitimate military actions of sovereign states responding to real or perceivedmilitary attacks to the demented acts of terrorists who attack public buildings full of innocentcivilians who are only going about their daily routines, causing massive loss of life. Forinstance, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 might have been a questionable militarystrategy in responding to the brutal ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo, but it can by nomeans be equated to Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic’s mass murder there.

The main lesson George W. Bush and other Western leaders should draw from this terribleevent is that there can be no accommodation or backing down in the face of ultimate evil. Anyefforts to mitigate the dreadful consequences of this carnage by an appeal to “root causes”only serves to weaken the resolve of the West in the face of an implacable and ruthless en-emy, who must be defeated for the sake of future generations and the entire world.

Point of View Two: United States foreign policy in the Middle East must be re-examined.

The terrorists who struck at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did not do so becausethey hate American ideals like democracy, capitalism, or an open society. To view this as theroot cause of the terrible events of September 11 will only serve to create further confusionand misunderstanding of this issue. Those responsible for the attacks were not simply fanatics,driven by an unrelenting hatred of Western values and a narrow interpretation of Islam.Instead, they were the products of westernized elites in the Arab world, people who found itremarkably easy to blend into the host society of the United States, where they lived for yearsin preparation for their dreadful deed of September 11. Such individuals do not hate theUnited States because of globalization or its obvious symbols like McDonald’s, Coca Cola, orNike. Instead, they and those who sympathize with their motives, if not with their actions, areopposed to U.S. foreign policy positions in the Middle East and the Islamic world in generalthat they believe to be fundamentally unjust and to contribute to the suffering of the peopleliving in these areas.


For decades, the United States has been Israel’s firmest ally, supplying it with the economicand military aid it needs to maintain an illegal and heavy-handed occupation of Palestinianterritory, defying successive United Nations resolutions condemning it, and perpetuating grosshuman rights abuses in the areas its military forces control. Despite some efforts by U.S.presidents to help facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, it is obvi-ous to anyone who examines the historical record that U.S. backing of Israel has been the keyfactor in perpetuating the injustices to which the Palestinians have been and continue to besubjected in this region.

After the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, the United States led an international campaign ofsanctions against Iraq, which some claim has resulted in the deaths of approximately half-a-million children under five, due to a severe shortage of food and medical supplies. Iraq, onceone of the Middle East’s most developed countries, has been destroyed, and its people con-tinue to suffer the effects of an unjust, U.S.-led economic war, while dictator Saddam Husseinremains in power, untouched by his people’s tribulations.

The CIA recruited, trained, and supplied people like the terrorist mastermind Osama binLaden when they were useful to them in the fight against the Soviet Union during the war inAfghanistan in the 1980s. Then, bin Laden was a “freedom fighter,” not a terrorist. After theSoviets were ousted, they were no longer of any military use, and were unceremoniouslydumped by their U.S. paymasters. Since bin Laden’s return to Afghanistan, that country toohas been the target of severe United States sanctions, which left thousands of children deadand about one million who were turned into starving refugees.

The United States has consistently supported undemocratic and corrupt Middle Easterngovernments like those in Egypt and Algeria, along with rich oil sheikdoms that deny womeneven the most basic civil rights and totally suppress any political opposition. It has imposedsanctions and dropped bombs on Sudan and Libya, killing innocent people in the process. Ithas failed to lend assistance to Muslims in Bosnia, Chechnya, or Kashmir, where they havesuffered severe repression at the hands of Serbia, Russia, and India.

The United States is not alone in this avoidance of the real issues behind terrorism in theMiddle East, but it is greatly to blame for refusing to confront them and alter its foreign policyin the region accordingly. Israel benefits from this refusal to consider legitimate Arab orMuslim grievances, while continuing to crush the Palestinian uprising against its occupationof their land. Russia too is happy that the discrediting of “Islamic fundamentalism” as a formof terrorism deflects world attention from its brutal crushing of the independence struggle inChechnya. India is pleased that Western opposition to Muslims in Afghanistan serves toundermine the cause of Kashmiri separatists fighting to free themselves from Indian rule.China is facing its own Islamic insurgency in the western regions of its territory, and is happyto support the United States in its war on terrorism if its reward will be admission to theWorld Trade Organization.

Of course none of these grievances can in any way justify the terrible acts of September 11.But an understanding of them, and a serious attempt to address them, could go a long way toreducing tensions in the Middle East and improving relations between the West and thecountries of the Islamic world. What the United States really needs in the aftermath of the


attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is not more smart bombs but a smarterapproach to foreign policy, one that makes a serious effort to be more even-handed andhumane in its dealings with those who now view themselves as its enemies.

Point of View Three: The real enemy is fascism with an Islamic face.

The attacks on New York and Washington represent an evil symbiosis of medieval religiouspiety and a reliance on high-tech equipment. The fact that the terrorists chose the World TradeCenter as their primary target suggests that while modernity is one of their many enemies, it isnot the main one. What these groups really oppose is the spirit of tolerance and acceptance ofthe views of others that is the hallmark of Western secular, democratic states. The Talibanregime of Afghanistan, when not happily playing host to Osama bin Laden and his terroristorganization, spends its time blowing up the statues of gigantic Buddhas—carved centuriesago into the rocky cliffs of Bamiyan—as a gesture of religious purity. Islamic terrorist groupsin Egypt with links to bin Laden would like to destroy the Sphinx and the Pyramids, not onlybecause they attract Western tourists and their corrupt ways, but also because they view suchancient monuments and statues as an affront to Islam. The Taliban is considered one of themost repressive regimes in the world, especially where it concerns women, whose basic rightsto education and work have been denied.

Many analysts do not share this view of “fascism with an Islamic face” as being the real factorbehind the terrorist evils of September 11. Feeling a deep revulsion of U.S. foreign policy andits impact on the Palestinians and the suffering people of Iraq, many have also been quick tocondemn former U.S. president Bill Clinton’s targeting of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan asan alleged terrorist base. But there is no way that a mistake like this reprisal bombing can beinterpreted as justifying the recent terrorist attacks. It is inconceivable, moreover, that if theIsraeli occupation of the Palestinian territories had ended on September 10, the World TradeCenter would still be standing today.

Those behind these evils are not opposed to U.S. foreign policy or Israeli Zionism as such.They hate the United States as a democratic, secular society, and they also manifest a deepracist hatred for Jews. They want the corrupt monarchical regime in Saudi Arabia replaced,not with a modern democracy, but with a fundamentalist Islamic state. They champion theoppressive Taliban rulers of Afghanistan as the true interpreters of their faith, and would liketo see similar regimes installed elsewhere in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Algeriahas endured years of bloodshed and civil war because militant Islamic forces in that countrywant to overturn a westernized, secular state. What these people hate most about the West iswhat most liberals and left-wingers like most about it—that is, its tolerance of minorities,emancipation of women, scientific and intellectual freedom, basic human rights, and theseparation of church and state.

For these reasons, talking about “chickens coming home to roost,” or equating the carnage ofSeptember 11 in New York and Washington with past U.S. misdeeds around the world, is agrave error in judgment that misses the point entirely. There can and should be no justificationfor terrorism. Islamic fascists of course do not represent Islam as a whole, but they are adisturbingly strong minority current within it in the societies where it holds sway. Their valuesand beliefs are inimical to those of Western democracy and secularism. For this reason, they


are not only our enemies for life, but also the very enemies of life itself, and there can be noequivocation in our utter condemnation of them and their evil acts.

Point of View Four: We must not ignore the human misery behind this crime.

One of the most disturbing consequences of the terrible events of September 11 has been thesuggestion that to seek out the root causes of terrorism can be viewed as an attempt to justifyor legitimize it. It has also been argued that the pursuit of root causes might in some wayprevent the United States and other Western nations from taking firm action against thoseresponsible for these horrors. In this view both of these claims are without foundation, andthey also serve to deflect people from arriving at a clear understanding of the real sources ofterrorism. This is absolutely necessary if we are to have any hope of preventing or at leastreducing the frequency of more acts of terrorism in the future.

To take an obvious example, criminologists who study the factors behind crime are notexcusing the acts of criminals. To examine and acknowledge the root causes of someone’sdestructive or anti-social behaviour in no way serves to pardon or exculpate him or her of anyresponsibility for the harm caused. But such an effort is absolutely necessary if we are seriousabout understanding the reasons why criminals act the way they do, so that we can take stepsto remove the causes of crime for society’s benefit.

Why are so many people unwilling to pursue the root causes of the terrorist attacks of Septem-ber 11? Why do they persist in holding some kind of “Islamic fundamentalist” mind-setresponsible for them? Why do they not want to examine factors such as the structure andfunctioning of the planet’s economy, politics, and society instead? It is because in doing sothey will be forced to confront the West’s own sins of omission or commission that havehelped to contribute to these evils. Such a stance is wrong-headed and potentially harmful toour society. For unless we try to understand the root causes of terrorism, and try to do some-thing to redress them, then we will have to strengthen our military and security forces, fightwars all over the planet, remove many of our cherished civil liberties, and still not feel our-selves safe from the threat of terrorist violence. But in no way should this prevent us from alsopursuing those directly responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington and bringingthem and those who have supported them to justice.

What are the major underlying factors that have contributed to terrorism in the world today?There are many, and they interconnect in a number of ways, some of which we do not yetfully appreciate. To cite just two examples; first, in the Middle East and South Asia, there is ahuge population explosion that has produced a large number of young, unemployed men,considered to be the demographic group in society most potentially prone to violent acts.Second, these parts of the world have also suffered serious environmental problems, such assevere shortages of arable land and water, that have impoverished entire populations, drivingpeople from rural areas into the slums of large cities, where they become easy prey for thehate-filled messages of political and religious fanatics.

Adding to these underlying demographic, economic, and social factors are the ongoing politi-cal conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan that have caused immense harm to theeconomies of these regions, prompting a refugee crisis of huge proportions. The leaders of


many of the countries in these parts of the world are corrupt, undemocratic, and heavy-handed, and have done little, if anything, to address the basic needs of the people they rule.Meanwhile, powerful Western countries like the United States have frequently pursuedpolicies that have encouraged the region’s irresponsible leaders and supplied them with arms.The West has also been more concerned with short-term strategic or economic advantages,rather than focusing on the wellbeing of the majority of the world’s people, who are living inabject misery and witnessing their already precarious position in life deteriorate even further.

While it is true that the terrorists who planned and executed the attacks on New York andWashington were not themselves products of poverty and marginalization, it is certain thatthey, and those who share their views, are driven by a deep sense of bitterness and resentmentover the injustices and inequities they perceive in the parts of the world they inhabit. Peoplewho live in misery, or those who strongly identify with them and share their anger, willalways look for an explanation of their suffering, and someone to blame for it. Rightly orwrongly, the most frequent target of their rage is the wealthy, complacent societies of theWestern world. When other forms of political and social change appear to be foreclosed orfutile, then desperate acts of extreme violence may seem to be the only kind of responseavailable to them. All this in no way excuses their terrible crimes, directed against innocentpeople in the World Trade Center. But unless the gross and growing disparities of wealth andprivilege on our planet are soon addressed, then the problem of international terrorism islikely to get worse. We live in a world of seething discontent, and we ignore it at our peril.

Follow-up Discussion and Activities1. In small groups, examine each of the views expressed above. Explain in your own

words the essence of the argument presented. To what extent do you agree ordisagree with each view? What is the general feeling in your group on each view?

2. In your groups, prepare an assessment of the thesis (major argument) of the pointof view, the facts, the evidence, or the data used to support the point of view, andthe conclusions. What, in your view, are the most or least credible aspects of eachpoint of view?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACK“Blowback,” or the Law of Unintended Consequences

The CIA calls it “blowback,” a word that means the unintended and usually unwelcomeconsequences of a covert United States operation somewhere in the world. This term, andmany of its unpleasant connotations, may have come back to haunt the U.S. government inthe wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September11, 2001. For if it indeed proves to be the case that the prime suspect behind these atrocities,the Saudi-born Islamic militant Osama bin Laden, was actually their perpetrator, then thisevent will represent the worst case of blowback the United States has ever experienced. Itsrepercussions could continue to pose problems for its relations with the countries of theMiddle East and the Islamic world, which could in turn dramatically destabilize the interna-tional order of the early 21st century.

Osama bin Laden is now one of the most infamous people in the world, the epitome of inter-national terrorism, and as of early October 2001 the most wanted criminal suspect on theplanet. Now a sworn enemy of the United States, he has issued a fatwa, or decree of death,directed against Americans anywhere in the world, and has ordered his al Qaeda group, basedin Afghanistan, to conduct terrorist strikes against U.S. military bases, especially in theMiddle East. But earlier in his career, bin Laden was far from being an opponent of U.S.strategic interests. In fact, the United States, at least to some extent, helped contribute tomaking him the threat he represents to it and other Western countries today.

How could this have happened? In order to understand the background to someone like binLaden, and the causes he espouses, it is important to know something of the recent history ofU.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia. During the period of the Cold War,when the United States and the former Soviet Union were engaged in a bitter global powerstruggle, certain areas of the world became flashpoints of potential superpower confrontation.In the 1980s, Afghanistan was just such a place. A few years after that country’s monarchyhad been overthrown in a coup d’état, a local communist group seized power in Kabul, thecapital, in 1978. This radical new regime attempted to introduce major social and economicreforms into the country, including permitting girls to attend school, restricting the influenceof the Muslim clergy, or mullahs, and breaking up huge landed estates for the benefit oflandless peasants. Such measures quickly aroused strong opposition from conservative andreligious circles, who proclaimed jihad or holy war against the communist infidels. Peoplelike Osama bin Laden, the privileged son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman with closeties to the United States, embraced a radical version of Islam and volunteered to do publicworks and eventually to fight in Afghanistan against the communists. By late 1979, Afghani-stan was the scene of a fierce civil war, and the left-wing government called on the SovietUnion for military assistance to crush the rebellion.

The Soviet invasion led to a major escalation in the fighting and caused the country and itspeople 10 years of immense destruction and suffering. Anxious to thwart what it viewed asdangerous Soviet expansionism in the region, the U.S. government, led by the strongly anti-communist president Ronald Reagan, decided to supply state-of-the-art military hardware tothe mujahideen, the “holy warriors” of the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance. Armed with effec-


tive surface-to-air missiles that were capable of shooting down Soviet helicopter gunships, themujahideen fought a skillful and ultimately successful guerrilla-style war against the Sovietforces that lasted for almost 10 years. By the end of the 1980s, after suffering heavy casualtiesand a steady erosion of support for the war at home, the Soviet Union no longer had the willto continue the fight in Afghanistan. Its new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, made the decision towithdraw its troops from the country. This represented a huge military victory for themujahideen, a considerable propaganda coup for the United States, and a humiliation for theSoviet Union and its communist leaders that was to be one of the causes of the regime’scollapse in 1991.

After the defeat of the Soviet invaders, the local Afghan communist government disinte-grated, and a new civil war broke out. During the anti-Soviet resistance, the mujahideen hadmaintained a united front, but once they had triumphed they began a bloody internecinestruggle for power among themselves. The various groups that had formed the anti-commu-nist alliance were divided by tribal loyalties, rivalries over control of the lucrative drug trade,and fierce personal ambitions. Of all these factions, the one that eventually succeeded inimposing its rule over nearly all the country was known as the Taliban.

The word talib means student, and the Taliban wing of the mujahideen resistance was com-posed of the youngest and most devout among its Islamic fundamentalist fighters. Trained incamps just across the border in Pakistan, and heavily armed and supplied by the U.S.’s CIA,the Taliban were well positioned to take advantage of the chaos and disorder inside Afghani-stan after the Soviet withdrawal. In the areas where they gained military control, they ruth-lessly suppressed any rival militia forces, imposed a harsh but effective system of justicebased on the Islamic sharia (religious law code), and dealt firmly with drug traffickers. Theyalso sought to establish an Islamic theocracy where women’s roles were rigidly circum-scribed, schools were opened for boys only, television, films, and the Internet were banned,and the country’s ties with the outside world were practically cut. To some Afghanis, wearyof constant war and internal power struggles, the Taliban at least brought some form of socialorder in their country. But to others, especially those who had supported the reforms the left-wing government had tried to introduce during the 1970s, their rule meant the installation of abackward-looking, heavy-handed tyranny. Millions of Afghanis fled across the borders intoIran and Pakistan, seeking escape from both the Taliban’s repression and their country’sdesperate postwar economic plight.

But for Osama bin Laden, the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 1996 opened up a newopportunity for him to establish a base of operations in a friendly country. After their victoryagainst the Soviets in the war, people like bin Laden and other mujahideen were practicallyabandoned by their one-time U.S. backers. They had served their purpose; communism hadbeen defeated and the United States had won a major Cold War battle. But in the aftermath ofthe war, the mujahideen from the Middle East found that there was little for them to return toin their homelands. In addition, many of them were bitter at what they regarded as a U.S.betrayal. Their resentment only increased during the first Palestinian intifadah (uprising)against Israeli occupation during the late 1980s, when the United States clearly sided with theIsraelis and refused to condemn their repression of young Palestinian demonstrators armedonly with stones. It grew even more as a result of the Persian Gulf War, when thousands of


U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia in order to protect that country’s monarchy from athreatened Iraqi invasion. Bin Laden was outraged that the Saudi leadership did not insist thatthe United States withdraw its troops after the international coalition it led crushed Iraq inearly 1991. Bin Laden and those like him who share a deep distrust of U.S. values werefearful that the continued presence of United States military forces inside Saudi Arabia (to beused as a staging base to free Kuwait from Iraq) only served to prop up a corrupt and undemo-cratic regime, and symbolized a major insult to Islamic religious and cultural traditions.Especially opposed to the presence of any “infidels” in the land where Islam’s two most holysites exist, they were also outraged at the ongoing campaign of international sanctions againstIraq, led by the United States, that has led to the deaths of many thousands of people in thatcountry, particularly children, because of a severe shortage of food and medical supplies.

During the mid-to-late 1990s, bin Laden established a loosely structured global network ofterrorist groups from his base in Sudan. His most dramatic actions prior to the strikes againstthe World Trade Center and the Pentagon (for which he has denied involvement) were thebombings of two United States embassies in Africa and the attack on a U.S. naval ship dockedin the Persian Gulf. Both of these actions caused significant loss of life, including U.S. citi-zens, and in response to the embassy attacks then-president Bill Clinton ordered cruise missilestrikes against bin Laden’s bases in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan believed to be makingchemical weapons. However, the latter action proved to be a major international embarrass-ment for the United States when it was determined that the factory had actually been produc-ing harmless pharmaceuticals.

To some U.S. policy analysts, the blowback from their country’s past support for people likeOsama bin Laden, to which is now added the thousands of deaths from the terrorist attacks inNew York and Washington, is a clear warning that a major change in foreign policy is inorder. Michael T. Klare, a prominent political scientist, professor of peace and world securitystudies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and the author of the recentlypublished Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, has argued that the UnitedStates must stop propping up undemocratic and corrupt regimes like the Saudi Arabian mon-archy in return for a guaranteed supply of oil. He observes that Saudi Arabia is a totalitarianstate where no legitimate, peaceful dissent is allowed, and thus extremists like bin Ladenemerge as the only form of opposition to the regime. He advocates a combined domestic andforeign policy shift that would seek to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreignsupplies of oil, while at the same time reaching out to moderate Arab political groups in theMiddle East by adopting a more even-handed approach to their dispute with Israel. On theother hand, veterans of the Cold War struggles against the former Soviet Union believe thatwhile unfortunate, the blowback from the U.S. backing of bin Laden was a small price to payfor the victory in Afghanistan that contributed to the downfall of communism. Milt Bearden, aformer CIA covert operations director in Afghanistan, is unapologetic for his past involve-ment with bin Laden and other mujahideen, despite the destruction of the World Trade Cen-ter, and flatly states that were he faced with the same situation today, his course of actionwould not differ at all.

The law of unintended consequences of past United States foreign policy decisions nowencompasses terrible acts of terrorist violence against U.S. citizens in their own country. With


a military strike against Afghanistan’s Taliban government and its most infamous guest,Osama bin Laden, in early October 2001, concerns were being voiced that this law might yethave even further disastrous surprises for the United States and its allies. For if U.S. actionsagainst Afghanistan result in the deaths of significant numbers of innocent civilians, thenopinion in the Arab and Islamic worlds will almost certainly be inflamed against the UnitedStates. And if the military campaign against the Taliban regime results in its downfall, and theU.S.-backed Northern Alliance takes power, then Afghanistan will quite likely be plungedinto yet another civil war. This is because the Alliance enjoys support only among a minorityethnic group within Afghanistan and has bitter enemies among other factions within thecountry. Should Pakistan become drawn into the conflict, its own military regime might betoppled, and possibly replaced by a radical Islamic fundamentalist government sympathetic tothe Taliban. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, as does its long-time antagonist, India. Any ex-change between them would almost certainly result in Russia’s and/or China’s involvement inwhat would by then be a regional nuclear war.

This last possibility is the ultimate nightmare scenario for U.S. foreign-policy planners, and ithas prompted the Bush administration to make strenuous efforts to assemble a broad interna-tional coalition in support of its war on terrorism. As of early October 2001, the coalitionseemed to be holding. But there was growing concern that once the bombs begin to fall onAfghanistan the law of unintended consequences could play itself out once again, with poten-tially catastrophic results, not only for the countries directly involved, but for the entire world.

Discussion and Activities1. In your own words, explain the terms blowback and the law of unintended conse-

quences and discuss to what extent you think they can be applied to the situationnow facing the United States as it seeks to deal with Osama bin Laden and histerrorist organization.

2. With your classmates, form groups to discuss the passage above. In your groups,evaluate the arguments presented in it regarding the role current and past U.S.foreign policy decisions have played in the emergence of the terrorist threat thatnow confronts it. What lessons, if any, can be learned from these recent historicalevents?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKRespecting the Emotions

Human emotions are an integral and powerful part of who we are. Because of this we can giveourselves permission to be aware of and understand our emotional responses and those ofothers to tragic events like those that happened so close to home in New York and Washington.

The buildings attacked in New York City and Washington D.C. were chosen for their sym-bolic value. The World Trade Center for three decades has been emblematic of U.S. capital-ism, while the Pentagon is the organizational centre of the powerful U.S. military. The terror-ists’ purpose was to strike at the heart of the United States, to hurt or kill as many people aspossible, and to create general fear and a sense of instability. In your opinion, what was theimpact of the attacks in terms of the following emotional responses?

Shock: As realization sank in that the crashes were deliberately orchestrated, many peoplewere simply overwhelmed by the immensity of the act. Skyscrapers are not supposed to comedown, and civilians are not supposed to be primary targets. James T. Reese, a PhD with theAmerican Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress in Virginia, noted, “This act has offendedour pride, our dignity, the value we place on freedom and human lives. It is something soforeign to our belief systems that our minds are at a loss to process such illogical actions.”

Fear: The fact that the attackers had manipulated everyday machines and routines to causethe destruction created a generalized and non-specific fear of the unknown and the unpredict-able. Were there only four planes hijacked? All planes were grounded and office towersacross the U.S. and Canada were evacuated. People were fearful of flying for weeks afterwardor demonstrated other fears such as being in crowds. Confidence has slowly returned, al-though people are still very much on guard.

Anger and Frustration: As the implications of the attack sank in, many people becameangry and wished to strike back. Comparisons to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor werequickly made, although disputed by many analysts. Unlike Pearl Harbor, there was no recog-nizable enemy with tangible goals. Initially, there was not a clear target for the revenge bornout of anger. Reese summarizes this tendency this way: “In this tragedy, we are searchingfrantically for a culprit. Anger should always move you toward your goal, never away fromit. . . . Due to a lack of direction or focus for our anger, we spend an inordinate amount of timelooking for someone to blame. Can we condemn an entire country? An entire religion? That isnot logical or fair, and can disrupt our own lives as well as others.”

Resolve: The initial anger engendered determination. Americans quickly bought up everyavailable flag and put it on display. Wall Street executives returned to work on September 17,clutching their flags. President Bush and New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani urgedAmericans to return to their normal lives as much as possible.

Follow-up DiscussionTry to give the events of September 11 a perspective of time and place. Where were you whenyou learned of the attacks? How did you feel? What can you remember about the reactions ofthose around you? What helped you deal with the events? Where did you see evidence of organiza-tion, help, and presence of mind? Why is it important in times of crisis to “look for the helpers?”


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKAn Occasion for Parenting and Mentoring

Coping with the events of September 11 and its aftermath has been difficult for millions ofpeople of all ages. Many of us struggled to process intellectually and emotionally the over-whelming images and tragic stories that flowed ceaselessly from media outlets. Friends,relatives, and even total strangers reached out to share their feelings and anxieties. Talkingabout the events—the first level of therapy—was a starting point for coming to terms withwhat happened.

The talking therapy is especially important for children and adolescents who might be fright-ened or confused by media coverage. As a first line of emotional defence, they turn to adultsas their role models who ideally provide them with information and guidance appropriate totheir levels of development. Assessing a child’s development and ability to integrate troublinginformation is a key skill that many adults find themselves having to practise when events likethese happen.

When tragedy strikes in the workplace or in public institutions like schools, trained crisiscounsellors can be dispatched to help members of those communities recover from thetrauma. The sheer scale of the September 11 events, however, meant that parents, teachers,and caregivers of all kinds had to perform their own crisis counselling quickly with fewguidelines and barely more information about the crisis than the children themselves had.Many adults experienced the same fears and also the uncertainty about how to help others—young or old—deal with the events.

Fred Rogers, known to millions of people as “Mr. Rogers,” provides simple but effectiveadvice endorsed by child psychologists on his Web site. He advises that the essential firstneed that adults and older students should fulfill in children is to reassure them and makethem feel personally secure. Repeating what his mother told him about “scary news,” Mr.Rogers advises, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.” Thissimple piece of advice is also appropriate for many adults.

Certainly many of the images from September 11 featured firefighters, police officers, nurses,doctors, and volunteers working to rescue and aid those caught in the attacks. As the eventsexpanded, stories emerged about people far from the attacks, lining up at blood banks, billet-ing stranded travellers, or contributing money or materials. Children need to have their atten-tion drawn to those stories. They need to feel that something is being done.

Fred Rogers’ advice is mirrored in many other Web sites and media articles geared towardchild-rearing or teaching. A second important suggestion in many of these is that adultsshould limit children’s access to scenes of graphic violence or stress. The same advice couldapply to many adults. Experts advise that we not immerse ourselves unnecessarily in thesteady stream of reports that flow for hours on end when such tragic events occur; that westrive to gauge what is essential information and what is painfully repetitious. Although mostpeople reach a saturation point, for others the repetition of the same information and traumaticimages can cause or augment depression or feelings of helplessness. Controlling and supervis-ing media consumption is even more important for younger children who may have difficulty


separating reality from fantasy. Adults should gather information for themselves at strategictimes to stay informed of new developments, ideally when their children are asleep or at play.Adults also should not underestimate how much children see, hear, and feel that they, theadults, may not be aware of.

Other suggested practical coping strategies in times of crisis include monitoring children’splay to detect changes in their behaviour, and simply being an active listener. Adults must bein tune with the children under their care, and provide avenues for them to express theirfeelings in a positive way. Everybody deals with stress differently, and children need extrahelp, time, and encouragement in dealing with theirs.

After the events of September 11, numerous Web sites and media sources provided tips forparents, caregivers, and teachers to deal with the emotional fallout of the attacks, as well astraumatic events in general. Some of these are listed below.

Adults Should:

• Model calm and control. Children take their emotional cues from adults. Avoidappearing anxious or frightened.

• Acknowledge that sometimes bad things happen to good people. First, it is impor-tant to tell the truth and acknowledge what has happened. Explain that this tragedydid happen and use words to describe the event based on what you feel your childcan handle.

• Stick to the facts. Don’t embellish or speculate about what has happened and whatmight happen.

• Reassure children that they are safe. Explain that these buildings were targeted fortheir symbolism and that schools, neighbourhoods, and regular office buildingsare not at risk.

• Let children and adolescents know that it is normal to feel upset after somethingbad happens. Allow time for the youngsters to experience and talk about theirfeelings.

• Encourage the children to express their feelings, and listen without passing judg-ment. Help younger children learn to use words that express their feelings. How-ever, do not force discussion of the traumatic event on the child.

• In group situations such as classrooms, respect the preferences of children who donot want to participate in discussions about the traumatic event. Do not forcediscussion or repeatedly bring up the catastrophic event; doing so mayretraumatize children. Be especially sensitive to vulnerable children who mayhave experienced other traumas. Many children in Canadian society today haveexperienced war and calamities, may themselves be refugees from war-torncountries, or may have witnessed first or second hand the trauma of their parentsand adult friends. In light of the terrorist attacks, adults should be particularlysensitive to a backlash effect on children from various ethnic groups.

• Encourage children and adolescents to feel in control. During and following theterrorist attacks, many people felt a sense of helplessness. Children should be


encouraged to continue to make some decisions about classroom lessons, meals,or what to wear, to feel that they can influence what happens in their lives. At-tempt to return to familiar routines as soon as possible, thus reassuring childrenthat their daily routines and social structure are still in place.

For more comprehensive information, Web sites like the following provide useful advice:

• The PBS Online Newshour Teacher Resources Web page (www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/teachers/index.html)

• CBC Ottawa U.S. Under Attack Web page (http://ottawa.cbc.ca/ottawanews/usterror/)

• Helping Young Children with Tragic Events in the News (www.misterrogers.org)• National Association of School Psychologists (www.nasponline.org/NEAT/

crisis_0911.html)

The Grieving and Healing ProcessFor millions of people the September 11, 2001, images on television left them stunned andmute with horror. For many, tears soon followed. The tears flowed partly as an empatheticreaction. The “drops of sorrow” fell because we could imagine ourselves in the position ofvictims at ground zero, or in the positions of the families waiting for news. This was espe-cially true with the repeated—some would say unnecessarily—images of destruction andsuffering that we all saw on television. Tears are a natural and necessary part of the grievingprocess. If one doesn’t see the tears, however, one should not assume they are not there. Manypeople grieve privately. What many people learned for the first time through this experiencewas to be quiet and to listen when someone shared their tears. Many people also learned thatthey cannot and need not fix the pain of someone else. Empathetic listening was all they coulddo; and that was enough given the circumstances.

Weeping is also a natural response for individuals, even those who do not suffer a direct loss,to help repair psychological rifts. Tears begin the path to mental and physical healing. Cryingis a coping mechanism that combines the wish to be taken care of and the need for psycho-logical relief. September 11 overwhelmed our senses, making the need for a release evergreater.

Eric Dlugokinski, a retired professor of psychology, worked with survivors of the 1995Oklahoma City bombing. He points out that: “Our most primitive automatic emotional re-sponses are located in the brain’s limbic system. People need to put their grief into words,through conversations, journal entries, or letters. Words activate more sophisticated thoughtsin the frontal lobe.” Many Canadians engaged in a collective expression of grief and sadnesswhen they came together in groups across the country to mourn the victims of the attacks. Ahundred thousand people showed up at Parliament Hill for a national memorial service thatwas planned in a very short time, an indication in itself of the importance of the event. Otherswrote letters to newspapers or politicians. Others sang “God Bless America,” “America theBeautiful,” or even pop songs like Eric Clapton’s “Tears In Heaven,” or John Lennon’s“Imagine.”

Sorrow, sadness, and grief can also engender many other emotions such as anger, disbelief,fear, a sense of bewilderment and emptiness, and even guilt. Many people felt all of these.


And when they expressed these emotions, they were fortunate if someone was able to validatetheir feelings, to give them permission to do what was natural, to grieve.

Discussion1. In what ways do you think the grieving process following the terrorist attacks is

different or unique? In what ways have you seen this process working?

2. When grieving, some people have particular songs or literary passages that makethem feel better. Others prefer to talk with friends, write, or express their feelingsin music or in a visual artistic medium. Are you aware of any such activities thatoccurred that contributed to the collective grieving process?

Returning To NormalcyU.S. President George Bush, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and Canadian PrimeMinister Jean Chrétien were forced by circumstances to become therapists of a sort to theirconstituents at large. The advice they have often given during this crisis to their respectiveaudiences was: return to normalcy. In a sense, political leaders are behaviour role models forcitizens, as teachers and parents are for children. A good role model in times of crisis projectscalmness, strength, and empathy. A return to normal work routines and leisure activities helpsin the emotional and psychological healing processes. It also helps channel energy into helpfuland productive activities, defusing anger and excessive or unwarranted fear. This was empha-sized in dramatic fashion when Giuliani appeared on the season premiere of Saturday NightLive, surrounded by firefighters, ambulance attendants, police officers, and volunteers. Theygave their collective blessing to the program’s comedians to be funny again.

A parallel goal for political leaders is to stabilize volatile economies that also reacted to theterrorist events. American and Canadian confidence in financial matters has also been shaken.The economy was already slowing down earlier in 2001, but the September 11 attacks pro-vided a severe shock to the system. Within hours of the attack, Bush emphasized that billionsof dollars had been released by the Federal Reserve, to ensure the liquidity of the economy. Inother words, the government reassured the nation that money would be available as it wasneeded.

Since the attacks, the airline industries in Canada and the U.S. have laid off thousands ofworkers, because far fewer people wished to board airplanes. Any service connected withtourism subsequently slowed down as well. Coupled with these direct effects, there were alsoseveral major layoffs in unrelated industries.

In response, the Canadian and U.S. governments announced cuts in the prime lending rates. Inthe U.S., the Federal Reserve cut the rate .5 per cent to 2.5, the lowest rate since 1962. TheBank of Canada cut the Canadian rate .5 percent as well, to 3.5. The hope is that spending willbe encouraged by the low interest rates, and the economy will be stimulated.

DiscussionWhat actions do you feel national or local political leaders could take to help people return tonormalcy?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKSecurity Concerns

A common statement made by media commentators following the September 11 events is thatlife in North America will never be the same. Is this true or is it hyperbole? If so, to whatextent is it true? Bear these questions in mind as you read the following information.

Some say that the belief that terrorism occurs to peoples and countries far from the U.S. orCanada was forever altered by the attacks that took place on September 11, 2001. The terror-ists demonstrated that they could strike at North American targets by exploiting gaps insecurity that had remained open for years despite numerous warning signs. Although U.S.citizens and soldiers were targeted in earlier attacks over the past two decades, the size of theattacks was relatively small, military or political in nature, and usually in closer proximity torecognized danger zones. Canadians and Americans were lulled into a fall sense of securitybecause North America falls outside of the expected terrorist milieu. The attacks on NewYork City and Washington were designed to strike at symbolic centres in the U.S. and toinflict large numbers of civilian casualties.

Attention was quickly drawn to the security standards of the airline industry, particularly ondomestic flights. Critics of airport security have long complained that the volume of airtravellers and inadequate training of security staff created an Achilles heel waiting to beexploited. On a CBS 60 Minutes report, it was revealed that Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) inspections were announced to the airports in advance, and that overly obvious“props” were used to test the level of security. Fake bombs fashioned with simulated sticks ofdynamite wired to an alarm clock were used, usually placed in an otherwise empty bag. As aresult, the FAA security teams reported a high detection rate. (It should be noted that inEurope and other countries, military or government personnel operate airport security opera-tions, whereas in North America, private security firms perform much of this work.)

However, when special counterterrorist teams established by the FAA conducted indepen-dent, covert tests, simulated bombs based on modern computer models went largely undetec-ted. Testing personnel were also able to enter restricted areas by using unguarded entrances ordisplaying fake identification when challenged. Disturbingly, some testers were able to passthrough metal detectors carrying various weapons, including machine guns strapped to theirbodies. One of the members of the covert teams, Steve Elson noted, “We found generally thatthe results were almost the converse of the standard FAA results over the years . . . For in-stance, if the FAA standard testing methods indicated a 90, 95 per cent success rate, in manyof the type of tests we did, it was more of a 90, 95 per cent failure rate.”

The terrorists did the unexpected, using cardboard-cutting knives as weapons. It cannot bedetermined whether they carried these weapons themselves or had them placed in advance ontheir flights. In either case, a security breach existed.

Follow-up DiscussionHas our way of life changed irrevocably as a result of the September 11, 2001, securitybreach?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKThe Emergency Measures Response

Following the attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., the U.S. and Canadian gov-ernments acted quickly to toughen up security across the continent. In some instances, exist-ing systems were increased in size or made more stringent. Other responses included creatingcompletely new institutions or strategies. Some of the measures implemented are listed below.Which of the these measures do you believe will have a major impact on securing NorthAmerica from terrorist attacks? Which do you believe will have the biggest impact on day-to-day life in North America?

• In the U.S., President Bush named Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge head of the newHomeland Security Council, to create and implement a new national security network.

• U.S. fighter planes have flown air cover over many larger cities in the U.S. Theyare to intercept and divert any aircraft posing a threat. The fighters may even shootdown hijacked planes if they do not respond. One Toronto-bound plane wasescorted back to Los Angeles by two fighters, when a passenger became argumen-tative after being caught smoking in the washroom.

• Airlines in the U.S. and Canada have enforced a zero tolerance policy with respectto weapons and threats. Passengers may not carry on to an airplane any sharpobjects, including shaving razors or penknives. Several passengers in Canadianand U.S. airports have been arrested or detained for joking about bombs in luggage.

• U.S. airlines have placed armed air marshals on their planes since September 11,something that Israel’s airline, El Al, has been doing for years. Canadian Trans-port Minister David Collenette has said he is open to discussing their use as wellin Canada.

• Transport Canada is weighing the possibility of installing a Computer AssistedPassenger Screening (CAPS) network in Canada. The system uses undisclosedcriteria to evaluate each passenger. If the passenger’s activities are unusual, theyare flagged for more thorough baggage and body checks.

• In Canada, the federal government created a new anti-terrorist committee, headedby Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley, to co-ordinate the responses of thevarious ministries. Manley announced that it is clear that Canada will need toallocate more than the current 1.2 per cent of its gross domestic product on de-fence spending. Of the 18 members of NATO, only Luxembourg spends less thanCanada. Expanding the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) or creatinga new agency for gathering international intelligence will also be proposed in thenext year. Finance Minister Paul Martin announced that the costs of increasedsecurity will mean cuts in spending in other areas.

Follow-up DiscussionIn what ways do these measures reassure you? In what ways might they themselves causeconcern? Are there additional emergency measures you think should be undertaken? Do youfeel any need to adopt any personal emergency measures following September 11, 2001? Ifso, what are your decisions based on?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKMedia Responsibility and Public Opinion

During the Vietnam War and afterward the response of the ideological right wing to thosewho protested U.S. involvement in that conflict, was “My country, right or wrong.” Followingthe September 11 attacks, numerous U.S. reporters, artists, and citizens were chastised orharassed for expressing contrary opinions about U.S. foreign policy or the response to theattacks. Some journalists have also been accused of being “patriots” and not being journalisti-cally neutral.

• Dan Guthrie, a columnist for Oregon’s Daily Courier, was fired for writing thatBush “skedaddled” to a military bunker rather than returning to the White House.Columnist Tom Gutting of the Texas City Sun also lost his job, for writing thatBush flew around the country “like a scared child.”

• Many radio stations in the U.S. not only refused to play songs that might remindpeople of the tragic crashes (“Dust in The Wind”), but also pulled songs consid-ered politically unsuitable. The anti-capitalist rock band, Rage Against the Ma-chine, temporarily shut down its Web site after complaints last week from theU.S. Secret Service about “inflammatory material.”

• Bill Maher, host of Politically Incorrect, was criticized by the White House forsaying that “cowardly” was the wrong word to describe the suicide terrorists; hesaid that it was cowardly to be “lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away.”White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, said of Maher, “The reminder is to allAmericans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and thatthis is not a time for remarks like that.”

• Similar sentiments were expressed in Canada over remarks critical of U.S. poli-cies. Sunera Thobani, a University of British Columbia professor and formerpresident of the Canadian women’s organization the National Action Coalition,received a barrage of criticism for comments she made at a conference October 1.In her speech, which received thunderous applause, she said, “Today in the world,the United States is the most dangerous and the most powerful global force un-leashing horrific levels of violence.” She also said that U.S. foreign policy “issoaked in blood.” She added later that she did not think her comments werecontroversial, but rather were necessary. She added “It seems like there’s really aclosing down of space for voices which are dissenting to this Bushadministration’s agenda and to me that’s very worrying for what that means forCanadian political life.” However, Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley de-scribed Thobani’s speech as “simply outrageous.” Canadian Alliance LeaderStockwell Day called it an “inciteful presentation,” unacceptable for somebodydrawing a salary from a publicly funded institution. B.C. Premier, GordonCampbell, called her comments “hateful and disgraceful.”

DiscussionUnlike the U.S. Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights allows for the government tolimit our fundamental rights where such limits can be justified. In Canada, where a healthypublic debate on these complex issues has occurred, has Thobani exceeded the limits ofacceptable free speech? How should the government define such a limit?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKA Measured Response

Following the terrorist attacks, the most prevalent public opinion in the U.S. was to strikeback at those who orchestrated the terrorist strikes against the World Trade Center and thePentagon. Gallup polls through the first month after the attacks consistently demonstrated thatroughly nine out of 10 respondents supported military retaliation. The urge to strike back is anatural response to the fear and frustration created by the immensity of the tragedy. Except forthe emergency response teams and volunteers near ground zero, most people were unable todo anything. Everett L. Worthington Jr, a professor of psychology at Virginia CommonwealthUniversity in Richmond, explained that frustration. “We need to do something, anything, thatwill provide some sense of control.”

Critics point out that the economic state of the developing world and Western ambivalencetoward it explain in part the hostility toward developed nations in general, and the U.S. spe-cifically. Michael Shapcott, a research associate at the Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies at the University of Toronto, noted that according to UNICEF, the daily deaths of27 000 children goes by unnoticed. The report titled “State of the World’s Children 2002”was released September 13. It highlights the fact that 10 million children under five will dieduring 2001 and that 150 million children in developing countries suffer from malnutrition.Shapcott claims that these are all preventable deaths, resulting from policy choices by privatemarkets and government officials. Shapcott’s comments were a plea for recognition of themisery and fear that exist for millions of people year-round in developing nations. The re-sources dedicated to rectifying the problems of sanitation, health care, and food are almostnon-existent, especially in comparison to budgets set aside for Western defence and security.

However, in a speech on October 2 outlining British and U.S. resolve to act forcefully ifnecessary, British Prime Minister Tony Blair also highlighted the need for humanitarianactions. He said, “The world community must show as much its capacity for compassion asfor force.” When he referred to Afghanistan, he went to great lenghts to emphasize the differ-ence between the Taliban rulers and the Afghan people, a theme echoed strongly by the U.S.administration.

Critics also point out that in previous conflicts, when troops were withdrawn or the conflictended, the attention of the world community turned elsewhere. In many cases, though, thehardships continue for the peoples of those nations.

DiscussionIn order to understand what is happening around us, we tend to make comparisons. Is acomparison between our reaction to the general state of misery in nations around the worldand the terrorists attacks close to home appropriate or relevant?


UNITED STATES UNDER TERRORIST ATTACKDiscussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. Prepare a chart or storyboard illustrating the events of September 11, 2001, andtheir aftermath. Use photographs, newspaper headlines, quotations, personalstatements, and any other materials that convey your reaction to this event.

2. Prepare a visual display dealing with Afghanistan, focusing on: location,neighbouring countries, main geographical features, population, capital and othermajor cities, type of government, main ethnic groups, timeline of importanthistorical events, religion, economic data.

3. Prepare a book report on one of the following: Covering Islam, by Edward Said;Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, by Michael T. Klare;War at the Top of the World, by Eric Margolis; Taliban: An Ascent to Power byM.J. Gohari; Holy War Inc., by Peter Bergen; Fighting Terrorism by BenjaminNetanyahu.

4. Prepare a brief presentation on Islam, its history, main beliefs, contributions tocivilization, and current influence in the countries where it is an important force.A good source of information is the PBS video series, Islam: An Empire of Faith,and the companion volume for the series, Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith andPower, by Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair.

5. Muslims across North America have experienced hostility and even physicalattacks. Canadian Muslims have long complained that their faith is stereotypedand misconstrued in the Western media. The impression that they say is oftengiven is that Islam is a violent faith. However, as basketball star HakeemOlajuwon pointed out in an interview, “This [violence] is against the faith. It’s areligion of peace.” With reference to the central beliefs of Islam, suggest why is itimportant not to confuse extremism in any religion or political or cultural groupand its mainstream beliefs.

6. The following is an excerpt from an e-mail to friends sent by Judith AdlerHellman, a professor at York University, who witnessed the dramatic events.What perspective on the events does she offer?

“You don’t hear much talk of revenge and military aggression around the UpperWest Side because this is a very liberal democratic zone of a liberal democraticcity. People here are more likely to state the obvious: they can’t figure out whoyou would bomb to get revenge, and they are as frightened of war, the loss of civilliberties, and of unleashing uncontrollable aggression as they are of terrorism. . . .Nonetheless, I would say that there seems to be a rough correlation betweendistance from ‘ground zero’ and desire for retribution and revenge. People we seeon TV speaking to news cameras in Salt Lake City seem a lot more insistent (andnon-specific) about ‘getting even’ than people we see here in New York (live oron TV). Notably, a number of the relatives of people still ‘lost’ in the rubble have


spoken to say that the last thing their loved ones would want would be the spillingof the blood of innocent people anywhere in the world. . . . It is in moments likethis that I can say that I have felt in a strange way privileged to be in Manhattanduring this terrible event rather than watching the tragedy unfold entirely mediatedby electronic communication. . . . But overall the tone is set—literally and figura-tively—by the five young cellists who sit in a circle in Union Square ‘accompany-ing’ one another in Bach’s Sonatas for Unaccompanied Cello.”

7. Conduct research and write a report on new security technologies. In your report,include an assessment on whether or not these technologies infringe on the aver-age citizen’s civil rights—for example Iridian Technologies(www.iridiantech.com) or Body Search, manufactured by American Science andEngineering (www.as-e.com). In Canada, the RCMP has already used surveil-lance cameras with digital recognition software to identify the whereabouts ofknown criminals.

8. One of the suggested memorials to the victims of September 11 was to recreatethe outline of the twin towers of the World Trade Center using lights. This wouldrestore, albeit temporarily, the New York skyline to its former status. The questionof what to do with the area around ground zero on a permanent basis has alreadybeen raised. Some propose rebuilding the towers. Others want some sort of me-morial, while still others wish to build something completely new. In a smallgroup, discuss what you believe would be the most appropriate action to take withthis area of New York City.

9. According to an Ipsos-Reid poll released October 5, “a majority of Canadians (58per cent) believe terrorism threats to individual Canadians currently outweigh theprotection of their individual rights and freedom and due process of law.” Criticshave pointed out that in times of duress, people will prize collective rights overcivil liberties. Write an essay assessing whether or not a reduction in personalfreedoms in the interests of security is necessary.

10. When Parliament reconvened, Prime Minister Chrétien was prompted by theOpposition to follow the U.S. lead on issues of immigration, refugees, and secu-rity. He responded, “The laws of Canada will be passed by the Parliament ofCanada.” While many applauded the Prime Minister for defending Canada’ssovereignty, there are others who claim that it is just not practical. Research thepolicies of the respective countries and write a report with your conclusions.

table of contents - curio.ca...contemporary life in a city that somehow embodies so many human...

Documents