University of Memphis students and faculty participated Wednesday in an open discussion about last week’s terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
Approximately 250 students and faculty gathered in the Faulkner Lounge at the University Center to listen and to ask questions in an attempt to better understand the causes and effects of last week’s destruction.
“People are looking at symptoms instead of causes,” said associate director of International Programs Calvin Allen. “We need to look deeper.”
Allen was referring to the amount of media coverage devoted to the attacks while little or no attention has been paid to what provoked the 19 hijackers to unleash an attack on the United States.
“Why would individuals be so disturbed by the U.S., so hate the U.S., so wish to take violent action against the U.S.?,” Allen asked.
The United States-sponsored embargo of Iraq may have fueled anti-American sentiments in that country and others because of the unintended results the embargo has produced, Allen said. Instead of crippling Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime, the sanctions have devastated the Iraqi people, the very people the United States has said in the past it wanted to help. Hussein, in turn, reportedly has blamed his country’s desperate poverty and hopelessness on the United States.
Allen also said America’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has led to the simmering resentment that could compel people to kill themselves and thousands of others. Various American policies toward Israel, including the nearly $4 billion in annual aid given to Israel, have led some nations to believe the United States is not an “honest broker” in the peace negotiations, Allen said.
Robert Bernasconi, holder of the chair of excellence in philosophy, remarked that many questions have been asked since last week, but “have those questions been the right questions? Does it matter what other people in other countries think? Do Americans pay attention to world opinion? Is America being hypocritical? Will this be a war against terrorism or a war against enemies of the U.S.?”
Bernasconi said that most Americans have little or no knowledge of their government’s foreign affairs policies, some of which result in an anti-American backlash that could lead to events like the ones last week.
This lack of public involvement in foreign policy resulted in the nation’s astonishment at the attacks and the fact that there are entities, foreign and domestic, who would like to inflict great harm on America.
Bernasconi said the American government has for years trained and supported “rebel” groups and individuals including Osama bin Laden, to overthrow or fight governments and regimes the United States viewed as a threat.
Shannon Blanton, assistant professor of political science, spoke about the differences between this “war” and other wars the country has fought in the past, and the specific use of Pearl Harbor as an analogy for the terrorist attacks.
“Pearl Harbor as an analogy has its strengths and weaknesses,” Blanton said. “There are parallels and differences.”
Both attacks had an element of surprise, high numbers of casualties and outrage accompanied by a call to arms. That is where many of the similarities end.
Japan was clearly the perpetrator of the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is not so clear who or what group or groups are responsible for last week’s attacks.
World War II was fought between clearly defined states or nations using conventional weapons.
According to Blanton, this new war will be trans-national, fought against shadowy figures across the world. A war our military has historically not been prepared to fight.
