The Terrorist Attacks on New York and Washington

<most recent Current Conflict>

In the aftermath of the horrifying events of September 11th, our nation faced several questions. Workable Peace focused on the question What should the U.S. do now?

The following materials offer a way to examine and discuss these questions using the Workable Peace Framework. Below, we provide an overview of the questions, examples of some of the primary points of view, and a summary of the main issues to be resolved. We also offer suggested activities to use in your classrooms, applying the Framework to your own conversations about a conflict in which we all hold a stake.

The Current Conflict: What should the US do now?

The way we answer this question depends in part on our understanding of history. Therefore, it is important to learn more about US policies and actions in the Islamic World. It also depends on the ways we understand and prioritize our interests, values, emotions and identities.

As we examine our answers to this question, it is very helpful to notice our own psychological responses. Violent and tragic events like the Sept. 11th attacks bring up many different emotions. Our interests, values and identities can be influenced by our emotions in ways that operate beneath our consciousness. In a recent commentary titled Misplaced anger may mask fear and sadness, psychologist Jennifer Freyd explains how discomfort with feelings of sadness and fear may lead our thinking toward aggressive or violent responses that ultimately harm ourselves and others.

However we come to our answers, decisions about what the United States response to the September 11th attacks should be will affects us all. As citizens, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to learn about and discuss these issues, and to let our fellow citizens and national, state, and local representatives know what we think.

The viewpoints below represent some of the range of perspectives on the current policy choices facing the US as it attempts to respond to the recent terrorist attacks.

As you read through the viewpoints, think about the following:

The key issues that need to be resolved:

1. Whom should we hold responsible and respond to? (For example, should we focus only on those directly responsible for these attacks, on any government that has supported them, or on any government that supports any terrorist activity?)

2. What actions should we take against those we hold responsible? (For example, should we try to bring them to trial under international law, attack them with US military forces, attack them with an international force?)
   
   
3. What else should be done to protect America from future terrorist attacks?

The interests, values, identities and emotions of the writers advocating these responses:

• What are the writer's interests? What does s/he want and why? Which of these interests are most important to him/her?
• What are the writer's values? What beliefs (moral and political) inform or underlie the arguments and positions the writer expresses?
• What emotions appear to be influencing the writer's thinking and conclusions? How does s/he feel?
• What identities does the author hold? What words would s/he use to describe him/herself and the members of his/her group? What role is s/he playing in this situation?

What does the writer say about the interests, values, identities and emotions of others who have different points of view, and who may be affected by this conflict.

The Workable Peace Sources Chart provides a tool for this examination. (html or pdf)

Viewpoints on US Responses to Terrorism:

Perspective 1. Wage a broad-scale military campaign to eliminate all terrorist threats. Build a coalition as necessary, but put the goals of the mission before the needs of the coalition. Dramatically improve security on all fronts in the United States.

• Uproot bin Laden's Terrorist Network and Taliban Allies in Afghanistan by James Phillips, The Heritage Foundation

According to Phillips, the US should wage a protracted, unconventional war against bin Laden, his network, and the Taliban, with the goal of uprooting the network and overthrowing the Taliban regime. This will require cooperation with a broad anti-Taliban coalition.

• Surgical Strike vs. Mass Attack by Jim Hoagland, Washington Post Editorial, Sept. 19, 2001

Hoagland supports a "strike-broad, strike-deep" policy, and argues that the US should not limit its use of force to appease a coalition who may be part of the problem themselves.

Perspective 2: Plan military action to remove the threat of bin Laden and his associates, but do so with great care and consideration of potential instability in the region, the need to sustain a multinational coalition, and civilian safety.

• An Important Distinction and Decision by Charles V. Pena, Cato Institute

While it is essential that we must retaliate, Pena argues that we need to be careful not to create more enemies in the Islamic world with a broad-scale attack.

• On Becoming Osama bin Laden's unwitting ally by Jerome Karabel, in the San Francisco Chronicle

  The case for massive military action is based on false assumptions, Karabel explains, and could lead to counterproductive results.

Perspective 3: Declare the attacks of September 11th as "crimes against humanity," and treat bin Laden and his allies as criminals. Conduct an international manhunt to track them down and bring them in. Rely on an international force to act. ...

• How to Defeat bin Laden by Michael T. Klare, from Salon.com

  Klare argues that we should treat bin Laden as a criminal fugitive, not as an opponent in a war. Bombing and killing innocent Muslims plays into the hands of Islamic extremists and will lead more Muslims to support jihad (holy war) against the US. Instead, he argues, we need to convince Muslim clerics to portray bin Laden as an enemy of true Islam.

• International Crime, Not War by Tom Barry and Martha Honey

  Barry and Honey, codirectors of Foreign Policy in Focus, argue that the US needs to address the causes of political violence, not just the symptoms. We must reject the call for war, and apply the rules and methods of international law in our response.

Perspective 4: We will never be free from the terrorist threat until we change our policies and practices in the Islamic world. Utilizing war and violence is both morally unacceptable and practically unhelpful.

• Understanding Osama bin Laden by William O. Beeman, Brown University Anthropology Professor

Beeman believes that the events of September 11th show the depth of anger inspired by the US He says, "If we perpetuate a cycle of hate and revenge, this conflict will escalate into a war that our great-grandchildren will be fighting."

• A Battle for the Minds by the Editorial Staff, Dallas Morning News

  This editorial argues that to prevent future terrorist attacks, the US needs to change the minds of potential terrorists. It is the poverty and chaos of places like Afghanistan, and the false perceptions of America, that encourage such desperate acts. The US must address the motives and goals of these terrorists in order to contain terrorism.

Classroom Activities:

The Workable Peace Framework provides a tool for analysis of the multiple perspectives held by stakeholders in both of these conflicts.

1. Read through the viewpoints. Which perspective is most similar to your own? Which is farthest from your views? In what ways do you agree and disagree with these authors?
   
   
2. Fill out a Workable Peace Sources Chart, using your own views for Group A, and the viewpoint most different from yours as Group B . What are some of the interests, values, emotions, and identities associated with these points of view? Write 3—4 per source.

   Interests are the things a group wants, and their reasons for wanting those things. Values are beliefs in the group's “right” to something or a belief in the way the world “should” be. Identities are the words the group uses to name themselves, in terms of their history and culture, qualities and characteristics. Emotions are how the group “feels” about something.

   These four sources are distinct in some ways, and helpful to separate, but can also overlap to a great extent. For example, “we want this piece of land, we believe that we have the right to this piece of land, we feel angry that they have taken this land from us, and we are the people of this land.”
   

3. Compare your chart with someone who has a different perspective. How is their description of your interests, values, emotions and identities different from your self- description? How is your description of their interests, values, emotions and identities different from theirs? Why might this be important?
   
   
4. Look at the points of conflict between your perspective and their perspective (both of your Group A columns). Some interests, values, emotions, and identities may be in direct conflict, while others are different but not contradictory. Do the different viewpoints hold any common interests, values, emotions, and identities that can help to build a common base for conversation? Are there ways to resolve some of the differences? Are there proposals that would be good for both groups? Are there compromises or trade-offs that you could make to get more of what is most important to you in exchange for giving them more of what is most important to them?
   
   
5. Have a discussion with your classmates about the key issues in this conflict. As you talk and listen, be conscious of your behaviors —try to follow the strategies that lead toward PEACE. Focus on explaining your views clearly, listening actively, acknowledging others' legitimate concerns, brainstorming options that reflect the needs of all points of view, and negotiating on the key issues to be resolved in a way that is likely to meet the primary needs and concerns of others.
   
   
6. Do a research project on the roots of the conflict between bin Laden's Al—Qaeda network and other Islamic fundamentalist groups, and the United States and the “West.” Use the Workable Peace Framework to examine the sources of the conflict from the two different perspectives. Does this information change your views on the appropriate US response? Why or why not? If so, in what ways?
   
   
7. Consider writing a letter to the President, or your Congressional Representative or Senator expressing your views on what the US should do to respond to those who committed the Sept. 11th attacks. Consider writing a letter to your Governor, State Representative or Mayor about what should be done in the US to protect American citizens against the threat of future attacks.
   
   
8. Other ways to get involved:

• Write an article for the school newspaper expressing your perspective
  
  
• Organize a forum at your school, inviting representatives with diverse points of view
  
  
• Explore opportunities to join in community events or meetings
  
  
• Follow the US response as it unfolds. Do you agree with what the country is doing? Why or why not? Has your perspective changed? How?

____________________________________________________________________________

Want to share your ideas on these questions with others? E-mail them to Workable Peace.

To get back to the top of the page, click here.

The Current Conflicts page is a resource for Workable Peace educators and students interested in applying their WP skills to current events. In this section, WP profiles a current conflict or controversial issue of national or global significance, from the viewpoint of two or more groups involved. For past conflicts that have been highlighted on this page, click here.