Post-9/11 Bombing Perspectives - Essay Example

Post 9/11 Bombing Perspectives A Critical Analysis of Two Editorial Pieces Submitted by: Fei Hsuan Chen Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in [Subject] [Date Submitted] I. Introduction It was in the morning of September 11, 2001 when tragedy struck the world’s most powerful nation. Four passenger airliners were taken hostage by 19 Islamic extremist hell bent on achieving their objective- to avenge the insults that the country has inflicted on the Muslim world. Two of them rammed and destroyed the World Trade Center – the shining beacon of capitalist America. One plunged on one of the sides of the Pentagon – the headquarters for the armed forces of the United States. Another one would have inflicted heavy damage on another infrastructure if the passengers did not try to take over the plane much to the disappointment of the chief conspirator, Osama bin Laden. After having witnessed what has befallen their country, the United States began to take terrorism more seriously that it had ever before. Here was an enemy without face that directly challenged the might of the country responsible for turning the two world wars in the favor of a free world. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as “the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons”. Everybody now knew what the word truly meant especially what the term ‘force’ implied. The United States spared no time in hunting down the members of the al-Qaeda. It began in Afghanistan where the Taliban regime proudly sponsored the extremists. Why you ask? According to …, “one man’s terrorist may be another man’s freedom fighter”. The country then proceeded with dismantling the Saddam Hussein regime whose reports indicate to be a major violator of human rights. (Combs, 2007; Gunaratna, 2003). The Iraqi struggle has been the focal point of criticism of the Bush administration. The war waged not on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan alone. It was also being fought in the mind and hearts of every American (Pillar, 2004; North O., Horn S, Horn S.A., 2004). After 6 years of the event, the U.S. is now split between those who considers it best that the country changes its mode from search-and-destroy to build-and-move on and those who deem it proper that the fight must carry on. They voice out their concerns in position papers, placards and editorials. In this paper, we will be analyzing two editorials whose content has much to say regarding what should be done now 5 years after the event. The purpose of this paper is not so much as to determine which is right or which is wrong. Rather, I am bound to critically analyze which is more effective of the two. It becomes necessary then to determine the strengths and weakness of both editorials and then come up with a conclusion which paper is more convincing and why. 2.0 The Two Editorials and their Thesis After more than 6 years since the 9/11 bombing occurred, the war in Iraq is still technically being waged. To this day, we still here of the loss of lives of soldiers and civilians due to skirmishes, mortar fire and suicide bombings. Six years after the Twin Towers literally burned and collapsed to the ground, vehicles and other properties are still being destroyed in the fields of Iraq. The US led war on terror continues not only in Iraq but also in other nations such as Indonesia whose Islamic populace has been the hostage of their own extremist kin. (North, 2003) To this day, the events of the September 11 bombings are being commemorated. It has become somewhat of a tradition where the nation grieve for their lost loved ones, lost countrymen and to a lesser extent, lost dignity. However, while it is true that is a time of remembrance, it has also become a time for retrospect. When we grieve for someone, our passions takes the best of us but reason still pervades in the end. It is therefore not surprising to read of commentaries and statements that discusses and analyzes the past events in history that is related to that day of grief. We read of assessments of what had been done and what it being continuously done. Not only that, this period of remembrance become opportunities to determine the ethics of the response made by the United States. This has been the case and the topic is that of the continuing struggle in Iraq. In tribute to the 9/11 victims, Eric Weinberger (2006) of ‘The Nation’ and Quin Hillyer (2007) of the spectator shares their mind regarding the results of the September 11 bombing with specific and sometimes vehement reference to the war in Iraq. Both of them opines on what path the nation should be taking after several years of war against terror. Should the war in Iraq continue or should the U.S. mellow down and stop from resorting to violence for the resolution of the phenomena called terrorism. One sides with the war, the other condemns the war. The following sections detail who is who and provide an analysis of their arguments. 3.0 Analyzing Eric Weinberger’s Thoughts on the Iraq War 3.1 Summary In his article entitled “The Real Tragedy” written for the nation, Eric Weinberger (2006) opines that although he agrees that “too much can be made of September 11” and that “too much can never be made of it for those who had family or friends die that day, or suffer grievous wounds whether physical or psychological”, he firmly believes that the day itself is not one of those moments which can never be entirely forgotten or forgiven. In his own words, he is inclined to "doubt the day itself is a national tragedy”. What is then our national tragedy? Weinberger (2006) argues that it was the war in Iraq that was truly a national tragedy. It was an act that served to make “Americans all over this country and from all classes” feel “impatient and angry”. Even though we knew that the act was “wicked and would be punished”, we pursued the war which cost not only destruction but also many lives. It is time to take action and prevent the “handful of men determined to go to war in Iraq” from achieving their “vision about Iraq and what the aftermath of a war there could offer the world”. Due to this skewed vision, the war has resulted to “the loss of life and treasure and prestige and honor that we know so well about”. Weinberg states that although 9/11 is “a day of personal tragedies several thousand times over”, he sees the ongoing war in Iraq as unnecessary and sees the “military--our country--weakened by Mr. Bushs war when it was supposed to make us stronger and more secure”. According to the author, the war in Iraq and terrorism should not continue because he “didnt see why we couldnt continue as we had before, warier than before but still, generally, secure, sure of ourselves and our nation.” Weinberger’s mind regarding the rationality of the war is shared by many other people including those outside the United States. A senior manager speaking for Ernst & Young Security and Integrity Services was quoted in a program as saying that “The Europeans lack of clarity from the United States as to what the goals of this conflict are and as to what the controls are that the US has placed on itself in waging this war." Ronan Gunaratna principal investigator for the United Nations Terrorism Prevention Branch, states in his book ‘Inside al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror’ ‘the vast majority of the Muslims believe that President Bushs campaign against terrorism has in fact increased the threat of terrorism and extremism very significantly after 9/11. With regard to Iraq, what theyre saying is that the terrorists have recruited more people, radicalized more people, and raised funds from Muslims just by projecting US invasion and occupation of Iraq as an attack against Islam and as an attack against the Muslims." (in Solomon, 2007)    3.2 Strengths of the Liberal article. The most powerful tool in persuading others to believe in what one is writing is to base it on facts and real events and to be logical in the arguments that are presented. The author draws upon the experiences of real people as he tells how the families of 9/11 “grieve but do not appear to be demoralized” and are instead “engaging passionately with their fellow citizens” and “attending proceedings, hearings and trials. In this regard, he is able to strike at the heart of the issue and pluck at the right chords thereby conditioning the reader to believe what he is saying. Weinberger also corroborates his claim that the people do not want the war against terrorism by citing that the families of victims of 9/11 were writing “letters to the editor in the New York Times, most of which are strongly critical of the administration and its conduct in Iraq and related affairs”. It made the impression that something is already being done, that the noise is increasing and the momentum is already gaining ground. It induces them to join the others in the crusade for the halting o the war. He is also able to address the main question that hounds every American and that is whether it is wise to stop the war (Martin, 2004). Why is it that Americans prefer to wage war? It is because they fear that not doing so would result to further attacks of even greater magnitude. This is why it is best to launch a pre-emptive strike so that we continue to cherish our freedom. Weinberger (2006) cites that instead of saving the world from further terrorist attacks, it has resulted to “so many soldiers killed, maimed or permanently disillusioned, vast quantities of expensive equipment destroyed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, most of which didnt need to be”. He was able to inculcate in the mind of the reader that there is an option and that “we could withstand an attack of the measure of 9/11 every year and maintain the cherished way we live with few sustained and substantial losses”. 3.3 Flaws of the Liberal editorial. In examining the editorial made by Weinberger (2006), it can be recognized that is ridden with too much claims without substantial evidence. For example, the author does not provide statistics on the opinion of the families of victims on whether they want to continue the war or not. He does not also provide statistics on his claims that many soldiers were already “disillusioned”. Although some of them are fact based (i.e. base from the experiences of people) it can happen that this is not the general rule. When he said that there was “handful of men determined to go to war in Iraq”, he did not specify who they were and what his sources were. Another weakness of the editorial is that it commits the fallacy of appeal to emotions. This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. The author appeals on the emotional side by delving more on the drama of the war and the families of victims. Certainly, the statements “Because of what happened on that day, the 9/11 families felt helpless and became determined” and “we see the enduring helplessness of citizens who wish to be further involved, to change things” are both appeals to the emotion rather than to the logic. He was also guilty of generalization because he claimed that “Americans all over this country and from all classes are impatient and angry about what has been done in our name” which referred to the war in Iraq. It was also a case of Non Sequitor when he believed that the bombing “would be punished” and that we could continue as before without going into war. He did not specify how inaction would result to such claims. 4.0 Quin Hyllier on the Iraq War 4.1 Summary Quin Hyllier pays tribute to the victims of 9/11 in his article entitled “Renewing the Spirit of 9/11” published in The American Spectator. Nonetheless, he argues that the war against terrorism should continue and be further strengthened. The author believes that the US “fighting against terrorists because the terrorists attacked us, repeatedly, both on and long before 9/11, not because of any fault of our own but because of their own twisted, hate-filled ideology.”According to him, US is actually “promoting democracy” we are helping “other peoples to have the chance to choose their own forms themselves -- and only a system of representative government can provide that opportunity”. What the United States was doing was in the name of justice. According to the author, the country did not commit itself with violence not because of hatred but because it wanted to attain justice. To quote the author, “Justice may demand retaliation, but it is a retaliation based on logic and on principle, and on laws springing from the informed”. For Weinberger (2006), the national tragedy was the continuous war in Iraq. For Hyllier (2007), it was the doubt that pervades in American society regarding the legitimacy of the war. According to him, “that doubt is a tragedy… The truth is that those sentiments not just were, but remain, well grounded in reality”. It was not the American’s fault that it was attacked; it was “their own twisted, hate-filled ideology”. 4. 2 Strengths of the Conservative article The author argues factually why the US attack on Iraq was justified. He cites the well known facts such as Saddam Hussein being hostile to the United States and other neighboring nations. He “fired on our pilots”, “harbored and sponsored international terrorists”, “brutalized his own people”, “invaded two neighbors and remained a constant threat to do so again”, “tried to assassinate a former U.S. president” and “was, in sum, a mass murderer”. One can also observe that the author’s argument were very logical and well presented. This can be seen in his defense of the United States actions which were against U.N. He states that U.S. were not “bullies” because the United Nations was in the first place a “world forum” which does not have the power to dictate other nations because some of its members did “not recognize the rights and freedoms of their own people much less ours.” The article was also very consistent and was able to address the major issues being put forward as arguments against the war. For example, he reminded that the attack was not due to America’s meddling in other nation’s affairs but was due to the desire of certain entities to dominate others by coercing them. In fact, according to the author, “the United States always rushes to the aid of any nation in the world that suffers a natural disaster... nations threatened or attacked by international thugs and totalitarians”. 4. 3 Flaws of the Article At the very start of the article, it already suffers from generalization and appeal to emotion. He stated that “Islamic murderers committed an unspeakable evil against this nation”. Why did he have to include the words Islam and coupled it with the word ‘murderers’. The author seems to characterize Iraq with the hostile attitude of its ruler (Saddam Hussein) and treats the country as if it was of the same attitude as the ruler. He also had claims that were not supported by evidence. The author states that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” which was not proven by any investigating body. The war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein had the propensity to harm the United States and its neighbors but the author does not recognize that there is no more Saddam Hussein so why continue the war in Iraq? His perspective was rather static as it delved on what happened six years ago without any consideration of the external environment especially the increasing international condemnation. The author was also trying to persuade his reader by stirring his emotions. He tried to make the reader remember the thousands of innocent people have been killed or injured. 5.0 Conclusion Both articles commit the fallacy of appeal to emotions, generalization and lack of evidence. Although it is not expected that editorials are not expected to be so comprehensive achieved in research papers, it is nonetheless expected to at least attain a glint of integrity only achieved thru well researched facts. It should not be a habit of a writer to say they did this so they deserve this or we should this because he believes this is what should be done. They should also give logical arguments. Although both editorials are somehow lacking in substance, I am inclined to consider the article by Hyllier (2007) to be more acceptable but it should be noted that such choice was only made for a lack of a better comparison. References: Combs, Bobbie (2007). Terrorism In The Twenty-First Century. Regnery Publishing, Inc.: Routledge. Gabriel, Mark (2002). Islam and Terrorism. Strang Communications Company: New York Gunaratna, Rohan (2003). Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror. Penguin Group: USA Hillyer, Quin. “Renewing the Spirit of 9/11”. The American Spectator.Posted September 11, 2007. Retrieved October 6, 2007 from www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11998 Martin, Clarence Augustus (2004). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Terrorism Sage Publications, Inc: New York Netanyahu, Benjamin (1997). Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists. Farrar, Straus and Giroux North, Oliver (2003). War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom Regnery Publishing, Inc.: Massachusetts North O., Horn S, Horn S.A. (2004). A Greater Freedom: Stories of Faith from Operation Iraqi. Key Amazon Remainders Account: USA Pillar, Paul (2004).Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy.Brookings Institution Press. Solomon, Norman (2007). “As Others See US - The "War on Terror". Retrieved October 8, 2007 from http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22368 Weinberger, Eric (2006). “The Real Tragedy “. The Nation. Posted September 12, 2006 Retrieved October 6, 2007 from www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/weinberger Read More