  |
| Where Does America Stand Today? On September 11, 2001, four planes crashed into American buildings and plunged the world into confusion and chaos. International focus rests upon the United States as the implications of the attack unfold. An obvious implication is the deepening hatred for Muslims. Caroline Drees writes from Cairo that to "the Western press, 'Islam' seems to go hand-in-hand with 'terrorism'." The incident also brings the hatred for America as a nation to the forefront of the global scene. America's global standing is not the only issue at question in this situation. Regardless of this nation's course of action, the effects will be felt worldwide. From the world's point of view, a good response to this incident does not exist. Americans can begin to discern some positive byproducts of the attack. Bush's approval rating among the American public is at the highest point ever during his current term as President. He warns that Taliban "must take his statement seriously"; the public is responding positively to his strong leadership and definite stance. Citizens all around the nation can be seen pulling together to help the effected communities. A feeling of unity like this only accompanies great tragedy. This sense of unity in the face of tragedy also extends outside the borders of the United States. NATO and the United Nations have both expressed rage and pledged support in the effort for justice. This attack has brought America together in a united front to "defend itself and act in self-defense", according to a White House spokesman. Unity like this is a direct result of the bombings. However, this united front forming in the United States has the potential to isolate and drive away other parties around the world. Isolated attacks driven by nationalistic rage may cause reservations in certain United Nations countries' support of the United States' reaction. This support is key in a world so globally connected as the one that exists today. Any tiny skirmish in a globally connected world has the potential to incite a large-scale conflict. Colin Powell's assessment of Afghanistan as a country "devastated by decades of civil war, drought and famine" is a dangerous underestimation. Action that leads to war on any significant scale is not an option. Modern technology, including nuclear and biological weaponry, makes it imperative to avoid serious confrontation. Furthermore, any policy that further isolates the United States from her allies is a dangerous one. Daniel Sobelman, Ha'aretz correspondent, cites "the perception on the Arab street of complete U.S. bias in favor of Israel" that contributes to "harm[ing] American interest." Current impressions of this country certainly played a role in this most recent act of terrorism. Further U.S. pride and nationalism could bring yet more retaliation form outside parties. America may choose to bypass retaliation and focus upon diplomatic measures. This approach ensures that the preexisting hatred for the United States is not given any opportunity or excuse to grow even deeper. In the status quo, Bush "has been planning a global war on terrorism and says there will be costs." The current approach is markedly aggressive. The United States is in the unique position to changes her approach and take the lead in the effort to establish worldwide peace. Possibly the most persuasive argument for a diplomatic approach is simply this coveted peace. This option takes steps to avoid the major disadvantage of the opposite approach of nationalism and retaliation-a world war. The images on television screens across the world of Palestinian children chanting anti-American sentiments erases many people's hopes for peace. Daniel Sobelman reports Egyptians rejoicing at what they view as "the greatest terrorist attack in history." To those opposed to diplomacy, war and retaliation are inevitable. Bin Laden is reported as referring to Americans as "impure" and making it his mission to punish them. Nearly all terrorists attacks in recent history have been "linked to Bin Laden", according to Ha'aretz; his history points solely to violence. Many view diplomatic attempts as futile in the face of these facts. Furthermore, failure to retaliate allows terrorism to triumph over the global leadership of the United States. Diplomacy could be interpreted as a manifestation of weakness; today's global community requires strong leadership. Ari Fleischer, a White House spokesman, states that America has "been attacked" and "is at war." The majority of the American public is directly opposed to forsaking justice; the population desires to send a very strong message to those responsible. The American lives lost in the attacks must be honored by the defense of one united nation. The only positive repercussions from the attack are connected to American pride and nationalism; the sole benefactor is the United States. However, the question of where America stands seems almost trivial when compared to the global implications of any known course of action. Retaliation may bring international war, and diplomacy does not guarantee a peaceful resolution with repeat terrorists. Neither option definitively achieves world peace. America may stand united in her efforts to react to this situation, but the true question is where does the world as a whole stand today? Where Does America Stand Today? On September 11, 2001, four planes crashed into American buildings and plunged the world into confusion and chaos. International focus rests upon the United States as the implications of the attack unfold. An obvious implication is the deepening hatred for Muslims. Caroline Drees writes from Cairo that to "the Western press, 'Islam' seems to go hand-in-hand with 'terrorism'." The incident also brings the hatred for America as a nation to the forefront of the global scene. America's global standing is not the only issue at question in this situation. Regardless of this nation's course of action, the effects will be felt worldwide. From the world's point of view, a good response to this incident does not exist. Americans can begin to discern some positive byproducts of the attack. Bush's approval rating among the American public is at the highest point ever during his current term as President. He warns that Taliban "must take his statement seriously"; the public is responding positively to his strong leadership and definite stance. Citizens all around the nation can be seen pulling together to help the effected communities. A feeling of unity like this only accompanies great tragedy. This sense of unity in the face of tragedy also extends outside the borders of the United States. NATO and the United Nations have both expressed rage and pledged support in the effort for justice. This attack has brought America together in a united front to "defend itself and act in self-defense", according to a White House spokesman. Unity like this is a direct result of the bombings. However, this united front forming in the United States has the potential to isolate and drive away other parties around the world. Isolated attacks driven by nationalistic rage may cause reservations in certain United Nations countries' support of the United States' reaction. This support is key in a world so globally connected as the one that exists today. Any tiny skirmish in a globally connected world has the potential to incite a large-scale conflict. Colin Powell's assessment of Afghanistan as a country "devastated by decades of civil war, drought and famine" is a dangerous underestimation. Action that leads to war on any significant scale is not an option. Modern technology, including nuclear and biological weaponry, makes it imperative to avoid serious confrontation. Furthermore, any policy that further isolates the United States from her allies is a dangerous one. Daniel Sobelman, Ha'aretz correspondent, cites "the perception on the Arab street of complete U.S. bias in favor of Israel" that contributes to "harm[ing] American interest." Current impressions of this country certainly played a role in this most recent act of terrorism. Further U.S. pride and nationalism could bring yet more retaliation form outside parties. America may choose to bypass retaliation and focus upon diplomatic measures. This approach ensures that the preexisting hatred for the United States is not given any opportunity or excuse to grow even deeper. In the status quo, Bush "has been planning a global war on terrorism and says there will be costs." The current approach is markedly aggressive. The United States is in the unique position to changes her approach and take the lead in the effort to establish worldwide peace. Possibly the most persuasive argument for a diplomatic approach is simply this coveted peace. This option takes steps to avoid the major disadvantage of the opposite approach of nationalism and retaliation-a world war. The images on television screens across the world of Palestinian children chanting anti-American sentiments erases many people's hopes for peace. Daniel Sobelman reports Egyptians rejoicing at what they view as "the greatest terrorist attack in history." To those opposed to diplomacy, war and retaliation are inevitable. Bin Laden is reported as referring to Americans as "impure" and making it his mission to punish them. Nearly all terrorists attacks in recent history have been "linked to Bin Laden", according to Ha'aretz; his history points solely to violence. Many view diplomatic attempts as futile in the face of these facts. Furthermore, failure to retaliate allows terrorism to triumph over the global leadership of the United States. Diplomacy could be interpreted as a manifestation of weakness; today's global community requires strong leadership. Ari Fleischer, a White House spokesman, states that America has "been attacked" and "is at war." The majority of the American public is directly opposed to forsaking justice; the population desires to send a very strong message to those responsible. The American lives lost in the attacks must be honored by the defense of one united nation. The only positive repercussions from the attack are connected to American pride and nationalism; the sole benefactor is the United States. However, the question of where America stands seems almost trivial when compared to the global implications of any known course of action. Retaliation may bring international war, and diplomacy does not guarantee a peaceful resolution with repeat terrorists. Neither option definitively achieves world peace. America may stand united in her efforts to react to this situation, but the true question is where does the world as a whole stand today? |
  |
| This essay was written before any course of action was taken against Afghanistan. It was written when the country was still wondering what was going to be done about the terrorists attacks and reflects the frustration present in trying to find a "solution." |