An attorney for one of the five accused men in the September 11 terrorist attacks announced that they plan to plead not guilty to the charges. The accused do not plan to deny their role in the events of that day, but will use their trial as a platform to air their grievances against American foreign policy. While critics of the civilian trials warned that they would try to spew hateful rhetoric, this may actually be a prime opportunity to learn about the consequences of our past international relations. Therefore, we should not be so quick to dismiss what these men have to say.
Many people have labeled the terrorist attacks as the consequence of extremist religion. Anyone who is willing to kill themselves and/or others to obtain glory in the afterlife (while perverting their religion in this life) is not in the mainstream of their respective faiths, or even logical. This does not mean, however, that everything they do or think in unreasonable. Many terrorists, including the accused, do not act on purely religious motivations, but also on political, cultural, and social reasons.
The accused men’s grievances against us may, in fact, be enlightening. Over the past century, American foreign policy, through its many nuances, can be described as meddlesome. The following is a short list of military interventions taken by the United States over the past one hundred years: Mexico (1914-1917), Haiti (1915-1934), Panama/Costa Rica (1921), Nicaragua (1926-1933), Korea (1950-1953), Iran (1953-1981), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1961), Vietnam (1965-1973), Dominican Republic (1965), Laos (1968-1975), Cambodia (1968,1970), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1988), Panama (1989), and Iraq (2003-present). This list, of course, omits the World Wars, Operation Desert Storm/Shield, the War in Afghanistan, and a number of paramilitary and economic interferences. With so much action, few people take the time to consider the points of view of the victims.
If the accused men actually do give their point of view on American foreign policy, we should take the time to listen. Comprehending the opinion of those who most adamantly oppose us would be a learning experience. Many centuries ago, Sun-tzu, the Chinese military strategist wrote, “He who knows/ Neither self/ Nor enemy/ Will fail/ In every battle” (The Art of War, p. 19, translated by John Minford). By hearing their complaints, we can better inform ourselves to the actual consequences of our actions, even if the expressed views are more extreme than most. Furthermore, it could also help us prevent such attacks in the future. For as Sun-tzu also wrote, “Ultimate excellence lies/ Not in winning/ Every battle/ But in defeating the enemy/ Without ever fighting” (The Art of War, p.14).
Even if the courtroom may not be the best venue to do this, it is better to do it there than with another attack.
Comments