THE FAULTY ANALYSES OF 9-11
By Jeffrey Kiviat
Since 9-11, there has been an incredible amount of analysis.
Practically all of it is either wrong or superficial.
The conventional wisdom, as exemplified by the now very popular
George W. Bush, seems to go something like: “These are evil people.
They do not understand the true nature of Islam, which is a
peaceful religion.” Now,
we’ve all heard quotations from the Koran that sound very tolerant and
peaceful. Unfortunately,
it’s not hard to also find quotations such as, “fight and slay the
Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall
soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will
be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . .
. as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell.”
How does one decide which quotations represent the “true”
Islam? I don’t see
how Islamic scholars can decide…. I’m sure President Bush is not in a
position to tell people, who read the Koran daily, that they don’t
understand their own religion.
Then there is the libertarian view as expressed by Harry Browne,
recent Libertarian candidate for President.
He believes that the 9-11 attacks were the natural result of our
overseas adventures: “When
will we learn that we can’t allow our politicians to bully the world
without someone bullying back eventually?”
There are several problems with this view.
First, most of our interventions have not involved “bullying.”
We have generally tried to help someone who was being bullied.
Second, most of our interventions have aided an Islamic people or
had nothing to do with Islam. Third, if the 9-11 attacks were a response to bullying by the
government, why did they hit the World Trade Center? I, personally, have some sympathy for Harry Browne’s
non-interventionist views, but prior U.S. interventions do not provide an
adequate explanation for the 9-11 attacks.
His solution, because it is based on an inadequate analysis of the
cause, is pitifully inadequate. He
says we should become completely non-interventionist, build a missile
defense and post a reward for the perpetrators.
Maybe, if we followed such a policy for 50 years or so, we would
be a little safer from terrorists. But
their complaints against us clearly go beyond our interventionist
policies. Meanwhile,
President Browne would do nothing more to go after UBL and Al Quaeda,
thus defaulting on his primary responsibility as President: to protect
U.S. citizens against the initiation of force.
Now we come to our fellow Objectivist, Leonard Peikoff, whose
views automatically become those of all who are associated with the Ayn
Rand Institute. In his view,
the attacks occurred because we have been appeasing the Muslim world for
the past 50 years…. we let them confiscate oil fields, didn’t respond
to the Fatwa against Rushdie, etc. There
is no doubt some truth to this, but in a full page New York Times
ad, this philosopher should have taken the opportunity to provide a more
fundamental analysis. (Note that this is pretty much the opposite of Harry
Browne’s view) A worse
problem for me is Peikoff’s view of how we should respond: “…. it
must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible
and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless
innocents caught in the line of fire.” [emphasis added]
Well, the quickest way to secure victory, with the fewest U.S.
casualties would be to use nukes on Afghanistan.
Indeed, in the New York Times piece, Peikoff applauds
Rumsfeld for not ruling out nuclear weapons.
I find this attitude abhorrent, and completely at odds with my
view of Objectivism as a pro life, value oriented philosophy.
Of course, individuals have the right of self-defense, and this
right is ceded to the government in cases of national defense.
If somebody is shooting at you from behind a shield, you can shoot
back and any innocent blood is on the hands of the initiator of violence.
But if someone shoots at you, and then escapes into Cleveland, you
can’t nuke Cleveland because it’s less risky to you than going in
after the criminal. You
would be violating the rights of innocents.
If it’s wrong for you to do it, it’s wrong for the government
to do it, since it cannot have any rights, beyond those of the
individuals it represents.
In my view, the real lesson of 9-11 is one that nobody is talking
about. The lesson is that
faith and force are two sides of the same coin.
If two people accept reason, then they have a pretty good chance
of settling disputes by means of persuasion.
While they disagree in some specific area, there is common ground
in that both accept facts, evidence and logic.
But if people’s views are based on faith, how can they settle
disputes? There is no common
ground. If one person
considers the dispute significant enough, he will have to use force to
“convince” the other person. In
other words: FAITH + SIGNIFICANT CONFLICT ->
FORCE. This is the
lesson of 9-11 that should be shouted from the rooftops and taught to our
kids. The perpetrators did
what they did because they accept certain religious beliefs on faith, and
faith is ultimately destructive of human life.
The fact that no one is saying this is a sad commentary on our
culture and shows how far we have to go in achieving a rational society.
I’m sure others agree with my view, but do not want to offend
the 90% of Americans who believe in God.
Even The Objectivist Center, in their position statement, tries
not to offend the religious. They
state that this was an attack on the Enlightenment values of modern
secular society, but note, “the nihilistic rejection of these values is
a philosophical/cultural syndrome that is neither unique to Islam nor
universal among the adherents of that religion.” [emphasis added]
Thus, The Objectivist Center seems to say that faith is O.K., as
long as you also advocate reason!! Well,
when is the last time you saw a Muslim on TV advocating reason.
The plain fact is that living by reason and living by the Koran
are incompatible. Now, of
course, some people compartmentalize, but to the extent that they live by
faith, they are living in a way that is a danger to themselves and
others. Objectivists, of all people should understand the importance of
reason, and its incompatibility with faith.
I find it terribly disappointing that the major Objectivist
organizations have not taken this glaring example of the danger of faith,
and used it to trumpet the advantages of reason and Objectivism.
January Meeting:
Concepts in a Hat
At our January meeting, we will play Concepts
in a Hat, an objectivist party game. In the game, players draw two
objectivist concepts or ideas out of a hat and then explain how they are
related. The idea for the game comes from the website http://www.vix.com/objectivism/ConceptsInAHat/,
where you can try a demo of the game. You won’t want to miss being a
part of this fun evening.
We will also watch an
interview with Leonard Peikoff from a segment of the FOX News show Direct
From the War Zone. This short interview from December focuses on
Peikoff’s views on the war on terrorism. We’ll discuss Peikoff’s
analysis after the video.
Join us on Saturday, January 19, at 8 p.m.
at the home of Joy & Jeff Kiviat for an exciting night of games and
discussion. Call (314) 469-2723 for directions.
Religion in America
A recent survey on religion in America
found increasing numbers of non-believers. USA Today reported in
December on the results of the American Religious Identification Survey
conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. The
survey was based on interviews with 50,281 people.
According to the
researchers, 14% of respondents said they have no religion or they're
atheist, agnostic, humanist or secular, up from 8% in 1990. Perhaps those
interviewed did not understand what “non-believer” means, or the
researchers didn’t clarify whether “no religion” really means
“belief in a non-specific god,” since the survey also found that 78%
of people with no religion agree with the statement “god performs
miracles.”
We welcome submissions of reviews, articles, columns and commentary.
Direct all correspondence to gwobjctvst@aol.com.
|