Shock Waves
After a shared national tragedy, what comes next?
More and more average citizens are resigned to the use of the most aggressive covert measures. "If they could assassinate bin Laden tomorrow, they should use whoever they need to do it," says Tina Rose, 48, a retiree residing in Livermore, Calif. Nathan Pearson, a biology graduate student at the University of Chicago, voices a similar view: "I don't see a fundamental difference between that [assassination] and warfare."
But to Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University, it's important to be very clear about what we are responding to. "To talk about this as terrorism pushes the political implications into the background," he says. "It emphasizes the criminality of the act. It's not appropriate to call it an act of terrorism; [it is] an act of war." Since wars are about political objectives, he explains, America's response should not be on pursuing justice but on achieving political objectives. "Which raises a big question," says Bacevich: "What are our political objectives?" If they include supporting a global system compatible with American values, he concludes, "It would be a massive mistake to think that simply bombing someone would be a successful response."
Duty calls. A more sustained response of the kind that Bacevich and, indeed, President Bush call for will require a stronger sense of patriotic duty and obligation than most Americans have shown in recent years. While it is too early to say that it will last, such patriotism has taken a sudden and sharp turn upward. "In the wake of this week's events, I have had three different students in my office asking about where they would go and what they would study to become an FBI or NSA agent," says Beth Karling, a guidance counselor at Mater Dei High School in Santa Ana, Calif. Military recruiters also report a surge in calls from people wanting to enlist, even from some who are long past enlistment age. Andy Bernard, 25, an aspiring writer and actor in Los Angeles, has been surprised by the awakening of his sense of duty. "I would gladly defend my country, which is interesting because in the past I have said that I don't believe in war. Now I don't think I would lose sleep over having to kill someone who was responsible for this." At the very least, many young Americans now look critically on their own former political apathy. "We have an obligation to take a more active role," says Lisa Jacobs, a first-year student at Harvard Business School.
Even as they think about what they must do differently, Americans are concerned not to change some things too much. In the short term, this means not rescheduling weddings long planned for the weekend following the attack, for example; many consider postponing major life events to be the same thing as letting the terrorists win. In the longer run, returning to life as usual means recognizing and respecting the strong libertarian tradition valued by many Americans. James McQuivey, research director at Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass., says, "We're just too fiercely independent [to give up civil liberties]. I'm not sure they're going to persuade the public that's necessary." He points out that the government already has extensive powers of surveillance that infringe upon privacy. "It's not like they wanted to tap somebody's phone and couldn't," he says.
advertisement
