Terrorism can succeed if we let emotions dictate actions

William E. DeMars
Chairman, Department of Government
Wofford College

We are only beginning to grieve the human losses from the attack of September 11, to measure the full extent of the carnage, and to identify its precise source. While our government considers an official strategy, all of us are already fashioning the equally important response from American society.

We should think this through, because a response based solely on emotions risks playing into the hands of the terrorists. In fact, they are counting on it.

We are the ultimate targets of Tuesday’s attack--not only our emotions, but also our loyalties. The sense of loss and violation, the fear, and even the anger we feel can become tools to serve the terrorists. But by realizing that we are the targets of attempted political manipulation we can exercise some choice, both individually and together.

Most Americans understand intuitively that the terrorists are trying to divide us against ourselves. We react against this by coming together to pray, contribute to the relief effort, and recognize the heroes that have already risen up from this tragedy. But some misunderstand loyalty to the victims to mean hostility to Arab culture or Muslim faith. Any American who turns against other citizens or residents on the basis of religious belief is handing the terrorists a small political victory, and is squandering our American tradition of principled commitment to religious freedom as a fundamental human right. Whatever the confused religious motivations of the attackers, we cannot forget the beliefs that define who we are.

The attackers also hoped to spawn panic. Here they seemed to have failed, although there is still some risk to the economy from the mass psychology of investor and consumer confidence. Our response in this area should be based on facts. The U.S. economy is fundamentally sound, investments and savings are secure, and contracts remain under the rule of law. If most of us, recognizing these realities, simply leave our retirement accounts where they are and continue normal spending, we will foil this effort to create economic panic.

Finally, Tuesday’s attackers sought to provoke a miscalculated military response. Military force will be an essential component of an integrated policy that also employs law enforcement and diplomacy. But force can backfire in several ways to serve the terrorist’s political goals. We can under-react, as we did three years ago in the cruise missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in response to bombings of two American embassies. Our strikes projected weakness. They inflamed Arab and Muslim publics worldwide who saw themselves as potential future targets, and failed completely to damage the capacity of Osama bin Laden or other terrorists to strike again. That is a losing combination for a war against terrorism.

In the current climate, the U.S. government is unlikely to make that kind of mistake again. But we can also over-react militarily, inflicting massive destruction on civilians and generating profound resentments that will feed the recruitment of our opponents. In this kind of war, the principles of discrimination and proportionality are also sound guides to effectiveness. We must learn this early, because a general war against terrorism is a matter of years and decades, not weeks and months. Our message to President Bush should not be, “Strike hard and fast because I am angry and need emotional closure.” Instead we should tell him, “Do whatever is necessary, and take the time to get it right.” Not only our fear, but also our anger can play into the hands of the terrorists.

Whoever planned the attacks, terrorism by its nature is designed to divide the target group against itself, spawn panic, and provoke a misguided military response. We in American society are the targets of these actions. We can most effectively resist manipulation by basing our response on facts and principles informed by emotion, not on emotion alone.