War is Preventable and Unnecessary
James Ledoux

There has been much talk around UNH and the rest of the country saying that the United States should respond to the terrorist attacks with more violence, to show that the United States does not back down against terrorism. However, satisfying the public's current bloodlust by attacking an untried scapegoat in a war of revenge ignores the reality of the terrorists. The terrorists obviously are not afraid of death-the terrorists who attacked the buildings all were willing to die. Most terrorists are unknown to us and by no means can terrorists be completely eliminated without eliminating millions of innocents, thus attacking suspected terrorists with violence merely fuels the fire of hatred and spawns more terrorists outraged over the current injustice.

Why do the terrorists hate the US? Is it because as President Bush said "they hate our freedoms"? Let me ask you this, do you think anyone would kill herself or himself to kill people of a country "with freedom", merely because their country doesn't have those freedoms? Or do you think these terrorist acts were committed in response to some injustice by some individual who doesn't realize that you cannot respond to injustice with violence? Do you think terrorists might have been drawn against the US, as a result of demagogues using the fact that US-led Iraqi sanctions that have led to the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians? Or the fact Afghanistan is a deeply impoverished country as it was left war-torn by battles between the US and Soviet Union in the 1980s where the US supplied and trained militants like Bin Laden and the Taliban, despite their religious fanaticism, and then left the country in ruins after the war? Or the fact that the US funds the Kurds in Iraq, but supplies Turkey with arms to kill the Kurds there? Or the fact that the US surreptitiously gave arms and supported both Iraq and Iran during their war against each other, in a callous act of cruelty increasing the death counts on both sides? I repeat, I do not support terrorism or violence in any form, but we have to look at what causes terrorism from violent extremists to be directed against us. Stopping the causes of these injustice would do far more to prevent terrorism than any brutal counterattack.

We do need to protect our country from terrorists. But after the Oklahoma City attack, did we bomb the Midwest out, because the need to counterattack against terrorism is "not just a matter of justice or revenge-it's also a matter of self-defense and survival"? Did we kill every member of every right-wing group that included individuals with thoughts similar to McVeigh's and Nichols'? No, we acquired evidence to find out who was involved, brought the evidence to authorities who legally got permission to use force and then caught those who were involved, tried them in the relevant court system, and justice was served against those found guilty. Why can't we do the same thing, where instead of the FBI and Federal courts, we go to the Untied Nations and World Court rather than start and pursue an unnecessary illegal war (illegal according to international law). Doing otherwise will kill innocent civilians, severely limit freedom of thought, create martyrs and hatred towards Americans, and lead to more terrorism against us. To the terrorists, our ideal response to their terrorism would be to commit more injustices against innocent Muslims, which they [incorrectly] hope would unite Islam against a common enemy and escalate their Jihad. [Note: Like Christianity, Buddhism, Secular Humanism and almost all other belief systems, Islam does not advocate violence as a response to violence and injustice. However, some fanatics can twist belief systems, for example as the Christian Jerry Falwell who said the reason for the 9-11 attacks was that God was angry at us (for secularizing US government) and removed our protection.]

Even before this crisis occurred, 5.5 million Afghans, a quarter of the population will be completely dependent on foreign aid for food this winter, according to the UN-led World Food Aid Programme. In wake of the war mongering in the US, aid organizations have pulled out the foreign workers for fear of attack, so even without war there will be a large-scale human catastrophe against innocent civilians.

War fuels the fire. Did violent English force stop IRA terrorism, or were the only steps for peace made when one side took the high road and said stop the killing and injustice, forcing the other side to act likewise. As Einstein put it "Peace cannot be obtained through violence, only understanding". I know it's hard to take the high moral road and repress the primitive desire for revenge in the wake of injustice, but that's the only way for justice to occur.

James Ledoux is a student in the Physics department at the University of New Hampshire. He is also an active member in the Student Environmental Action Coalition and the newly established UNH Peace Action.