But Why?

By Tara Polzer, 12 Sept 2001

The question dominating the news reporting of Tuesday’s attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is “who”. Who did it? Who is responsible? Some strategists and security experts are trying to answer “how”? But the central question is not being asked anywhere. This question is: WHY?

Perhaps it is not being asked because the answer is assumed to be obvious. It is buried deep within the US American psyche. Assuming the unquestioned pre-eminence of the United States of America - militarily, economically, politically, and especially morally - the only imaginable motivations for such an attack are seen to be jealousy, blind amoral hate, or plain “evil.” Who other than a deranged individual or fanatical group would want to hurt the global representative of freedom, democracy, justice, and the liberty to engage in competitive commerce? If this is the answer to “WHY”, then the logical response is to seek out this individual or group and punish them severely for their blasphemy, thereby exorcising the threat from the bosom of the moral community.

HOWEVER, what if the answer to “WHY” is to be found partly within the fold, as a direct cause of the actions of the believers themselves? Not so long ago, in Oklahoma, Americans came face to face with themselves, rather than with a distant other. This possibility has, so far, not even been raised. But even if the attacks were planned and carried out by Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Serbs, North Koreans, Chinese (a progression from the most current suspects to the would-have-been-suspects-not-so-long-ago) - what if behind the extreme and unjustifiable means there was a justifiable motive? What if the United States is co-responsible?

There are many voices, by no means all radical and certainly not all terrorist, which recognise the contribution which US policy has made to increasing inequality and poverty around the world. Voices which question the universality of US American values and ways of life. If these (often moderate, democratic, liberal, American) voices are given credence, then forcibly eliminating an individual or a small group will not solve America’s problem. It is more likely that a show of extreme military and political power will confirm the grievance which tacitly or directly supports terrorist activity around the world.

It is not a question of negotiating with or pandering to terrorists, nor a question of denying the rage and fear and suffering of those who have been directly and indirectly hurt by this attack. It is a question of recognising that large parts of the global population see the United States as a threat, and a question of recognising a measure of co-responsibility in creating this support. This is directly in the interest of preventing similar attacks in future.

This terrible attack should be seen as a chance for the US to reconsider its role in the world, a chance to admit vulnerability in terms of the moral basis from which it claims legitimacy for its power (since its vulnerability in terms of physical security has been incontrovertibly shown). Rather than repressing dissidence, as is so often the first reaction in times of crisis, critical voices should be given a greater hearing than ever before. This is a chance for the United States to truly claim the moral authority it seeks by countering violence with democracy and debate, rather than with more violence.