SAN DIEGO, Calif. (September 11, 2002)--Exactly
one year after the most horrific single terrorist act in U.S. history,
the world begins what will surely become an annual ritual of remembrance.
Even with six billion inhabitants on this planet, it is almost inconceivable
that you could find any significant group of people for which the words
"September 11th" has little meaning. So far-reaching was the
impact of that day's events around the world, that they have been distilled
down in reference to the date, or its numeric symbols. Just say the
date or simply, "9/11" and just about anyone that you talk
to will know what you're talking about. Say the date, and feelings will
stir from deep within. The salient question of the moment--one scant
year after the fact--is "Where do we go from here?"
Where indeed has the world gone in the wake of
the events of September 11, 2001? Is it toward a safer, better space?
Or does the tragedy represent the "first domino" in a chain
of even more sorrowful events? It is important that we look ahead with
reasoned, instead of vengeful eyes.
One year after the 9/11 tragedy it seems that
we've gone in both directions. In his zeal to solidify political strength
in the name of justice, President Bush has declared a "War on Terrorism."
In so doing, he has also stoked the flames of national pride on one
hand, and prejudice--against American unilateralism--on the other. Intent
on avenging the deaths of over 3,000 people--from over 60 countries--who
perished on that fateful day, he deployed troops to Afghanistan to "kick
Al Qaeda's ass" and bring back the head of Osama bin Laden, the
alleged mastermind of the terrorist operation. While in Afghanistan,
U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban, the religious sect that had ruled
the Afghani people with a repressive, misogynistic hand. But it's now
365 days and counting, and in spite of intensive searches through the
wilderness and caves of that barren country, Mr. bin Laden has still
"been missin.'"
His bloodlust unquenched, his trigger finger still
twitching, and his aim set, Mr. Bush continues the push for retribution,
vowing to root out the "axis of evil" that brought about the
events of 9/11. His attention is currently directed at Iraq, a country
of roughly 23 million people. Its leader, Saddam Hussein, is believed--according
to U.S. intelligence sources--to be amassing "weapons of mass destruction."
The United States of America, which already has such weapons and has
used them (1945, against Japan), is apparently so fearful of Iraq gaining
such capability that Mr. Bush has made public his desire to invade the
country and overthrow the government. He wants to destroy any chemical
weapon production capability in Iraq and remove the Hussein regime.
"Removing the Hussein regime," by Bush administration officials'
own admission, means "taking out" or killing Saddam Hussein.
Yet, the same officials emphatically state that President Bush is for
"peace."

I mirror and amplify the President's interest
in peace. However, we part company with respect to the best way of achievement.
Peace cannot come through the barrel of a gun, the dropping of bombs,
or in the continued inclination to do so, even while attempting to "root
out evil doers." The Bush Administration's eagerness to wage war,
possessing far greater fire and killing power than our adversary will
ever amass, tends to make valid the question of who is actually being
"evil" here? At the very least, the President should demonstrate
some anguish and reservation over the specter of annihilating an overmatched
opponent. He should let Iraq, the Middle East, and the world know that,
while we don't fear it, the U.S. abhors and renounces destructive practice
in all forms--terrorism and war included--and will not use such practice
as its lead policy. This gesture alone would immediately diffuse some
of the tensions that are running rampant around the world.
I believe that peace is possible. Yet, it is particularly
timely to question whose shoulder evil sits on when you consider that
as an official policy, the U.S. is attempting to overthrow another sovereign
nation on belief of a weapons capability that Iraq has never used against
us, even when they had a chance during the Persian Gulf War. We need
to make the distinction between our cause and way, and the cause and
way of terrorists. We can't be "right" in seeking to destroy
others, but think that others are "wrong" in seeking to destroy
us. Changing our thinking in this regard doesn't require reducing our
resolve for justice one iota. At issue is the way we go about getting
it, and how much damage is caused. At present, all administration arguments
for taking down Saddam Hussein sound specious at best, if not outright
dishonest.
Iraq has used nerve gas in warfare; against Kurdish
people during the Iran-Iraq war in the early 1990's. This is one of
the factors that pro-"thrash Iraq" factions have cited in
their efforts to gain support for war. However, this doesn't make Iraq
a threat to the U.S. In fact, if it weren't for Saddam Hussein being
the "greater evil dujour," we might be planning to go after
the Kurdish people (and others) for their practice of "honor killing"
the women of their families who elect to follow the designs of their
own mind and heart that may differ from "accepted cultural practice."
Suicide bombings can't be a big leap of logic for people who sanction
such insanity. But that doesn't justify making a unilateral attack on
Iraq.
The only "promise" that Iraq has made
in response to a possible U.S. attack, is that it would retaliate. Unlike
terrorist organizations, such as Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement)
that have claimed responsibility for suicide bombings in Israel, Saddam
Hussein has not publicly expressed any intent to attack the U.S. This
is not to say that he doesn't really want to do it, but his silence
is in stark contrast to the very "public" public opinion campaign
currently being waged by the Bush administration.
The Bush administration's efforts to "build
a case" to justify attacking Iraq belies the President's stated
commitment to peace. The President is, in essence and truth, trying
to find a way to justify waging yet another war against a mere "wisp"
of an opponent. Iraq is so overmatched economically and militarily that
we are being lulled into a false sense of security that we can "win"
a war there--with no concern about innocent Iraqi people--without any
or many casualties of our own. However, the real force that we must
be prepared to withstand, is that of our own fear. If peace is truly
sought, a man and nation of peace takes all innocent people into consideration,
and lead with peaceful ways to get what it seeks.
Some political and military pundits believe that
justice is more important than peace. They believe that justice means
bringing down all who were responsible for that horrific tragedy. Yet,
the true solution is not in bringing an enemy down; it lies in extending
our hands and hearts, and helping them lift themselves up to a new level
of human living and being. Instead of representing a deadly threat,
the U.S. should offer rays of hope and upliftment to those who, if we
are to believe the press releases, are delusional enough to think they
can destroy us. As Americans, we must know better. Our peace cannot
be destroyed by any outside force. Yet it can be eroded if we are guided
by fear. If we find our peace within that knowing, justice will have
begun.