What can we do?
March 31Alex Alexiou's letter of Feb.1 ("Why Leupp is Wrong") did not, in fact, assert that I was incorrect on any point discussed in my Viewpoint ("Why the War Is, and Was, Wrong," Jan. 29-30). Rather, he contended that I had "failed to answer" the question, "What should we have done instead?" Space considerations alone would have precluded that. The Daily was more than generous in allowing me a two-part commentary, but to address Alexiou's question would require another piece altogether. Here I'll be brief. There are at least two ways to interpret Alexiou's question. I believe he is really asking, "What should the US government have done, after Sept. 11 and once al Qaeda had been identified as the perpetrator, to eradicate al Qaeda and prevent other such attacks in the future?" Many people, in the aftermath of the attacks, began addressing that question, on the basis of their prior understanding of the world. Some counseled use of the International Court of Justice, deeply concerned that a bellicose response was likely to generate more insecurity and "blowback." I was generally sympathetic with that position about what the US should do. But while most of us were still reeling with the shock and grief of Sept. 11, the Bush administration made it clear what it would do, and its contempt for alternative courses of action. It would declare "war on terrorism." It would make clear that that war, against "evil-doers," would be lengthy ("beyond our lifetimes," predicted Cheney), and involve many nations. It would not be confined to groups linked to al-Qaeda but all "terrorist" groups and nations "sponsoring terror" as defined by US officials. It would involve another confrontation with Iraq at some point. It would require all nations to choose whether "to be for us or against us," the meaning of the phrase left deliberately vague. It would require an attack on Afghanistan, and pressure on governments, especially that of Pakistan, to take measures that could destabilize the region. It would involve substantial restriction of civil liberties of US citizens, to say nothing of roundups of certain foreigners; criticism of such measures would be construed as "abetting terrorism." Some of us assumed in those early weeks that it would mean lots of civilian casualties and chaos in Afghanistan - among the results described in my Viewpoint. But nobody knew how quickly the advertised war would turn surreal, with the deployment of over 650 US troops to confront a tiny bandit group in the southern Philippines as a "second front" of the "war." No one could have predicted that President Bush, in his first State of the Union address, given less than four months after Sept. 11, would virtually ignore bin Laden and al Qaeda but pronounce, in a bizarre rhetorical flourish that would send off alarm bells in foreign capitals, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea "an axis of evil" - likely targets of further US action. But many with a good grasp of recent US history and foreign policy have felt mounting alarm from the onset of this crisis. No way was the US government going to do what should be done! But there's the other interpretation of Alexiou's question: "What should we (as in, 'we, the people') have done in response to Sept. 11, and to the policy course the administration has followed since?" My answer is: Do what many of us have done since - educate ourselves, debate among ourselves, challenge simplistic and jingoistic views of the world, and appropriately expose, protest and resist each new move in the "war on terrorism" that we consider wrong.Gary P. Leupp is a professor in history.
