April 2004

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

War on Terror Is Not the Answer

A Friends Committee on National Legislation Action Alert, www.fcnl.org .

On March 23 and 24, 2004, the September 11 commission, an independent panel established by Congress to investigate the attacks of September 11, 2001, heard testimony from a number of senior officials from past and present administrations. Those testifying included Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, CIA Director George Tenet, former national security advisor Sandy Berger, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke. The hearings were marked by partisanship and bickering over Clarke's recent book criticizing the Bush Administration's approach to terrorism and the Iraq war. The September 11 panel is expected to issue its final report by late July.

The hearings focused almost entirely on failures of intelligence and military operations to thwart al Qaeda, ignoring deeper questions regarding the history of terrorism and U.S. policy. In his testimony, for example, Clarke recommended, "One of the things I would hope that comes out of your commission report is a recommendation for a change in the attitude of government about threats, that we be able to act on threats that we foresee, even if acting requires boldness and requires money and requires changing the way we do business, that we act on threats in the future before they happen."

Unfortunately, such a prescription, and current policy, proposes preventive war, rather than peaceful prevention, as the answer to stopping attacks before they happen. No questions were raised about the role of U.S. policy in fueling terrorist threats over the years and contributing to the cycle of violence. Indeed, the conclusion of many of those testifying, from both parties, seemed to be that more overt unilateral military force, not less, was the answer to prevent terrorist attacks.

War is not the answer. More effective policy to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce the threat of deadly conflict would strengthen international cooperation and the rule of law, not undermine it. More effective policy would increase, not cut, funding for preventive diplomacy, development assistance, and arms control programs. More effective policy would help break the cycle of violence through creative, non-military initiatives that unite, rather than divide, the global community to end terror and violence against civilians. More effective policy would address and resolve the root causes of violent conflict and establish just relations across religious, cultural, and national borders.

To take action, write a letter-to-the-editor responding to a recent article in your local paper about the September 11 commission hearings and the "war on terror." Raise concerns that the current focus of the commission, policymakers, and the media failure to address the deeper roots of terrorism or critically examine the role of U.S. policy in fueling violence and resentment. In your letter, urge your members of Congress to ask the tougher questions and to support smarter policies for preventing acts of terrorism and war. Emphasize that war is not the answer!

To view a sample letter to the media, visit http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=5432051&type=ME, then enter your zip code and click "Go."

Make sure to adapt your letter as a response to an article in your local paper and identify your members of Congress by name. For more tips on writing letters to the editor, please see www.fcnl.org/getin/tips.htm.

For letters to your House representative, consider citing the proposed SMART Security Resolution (H ConRes 392) as a more effective basis for U.S. security policy and urge her or him to become a cosponsor. Please see http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/bills/?bill=5392876&alertid=5392881 for more information and to find out if your representative is already a cosponsor.

Previous Article    Next Article