Terrorism: What Should We Do Now?

Report on a National Issues Forum Held at The Sagamore, April 20, 2002

Melissa Davis and Mary Lyter

            Lock Haven University hosted one of the sessions at this year’s Northeastern National Collegiate Honors conference.  It was a forum entitled Terrorism: What Should We Do Now? moderated by Dr. James Knauer.  Fifty participants came together for the purpose of public deliberation in a town-meeting style setting.  After watching a starter video, which outlined the issue, the discussion began with some members of the group sharing personal stakes and concerns.  These helped to establish a foundation for the open discussion that followed.  For each of the three approaches to the issue, Dr. Knauer briefly described the course of action proposed.  From there, participants were encouraged not to only share their own opinions about the approach but to also question each other to gain a deeper understanding of the issue and the others’ perspectives.  Throughout the forum, Dr. Knauer explained that the individual approaches were not designed to be the sole answer to the problem, but rather that participants should consider which combination(s) of options would best address the problem.  He was careful to point out that even though one approach may seem to be widely accepted, all have consequences and trade-offs.

            To begin, group members identified concerns that they had dealing with different aspects of the issue.  These concerns included U.S. dependence on oil and its need to find alternate sources of this natural resource.  Others voiced concerns about the government, fearing infringement on citizens’ rights and the negative consequences that may result from partisan mind-set and ensuing action.  The question was also posed as to whether the U.S. is setting out to do the impossible: destroy all terrorism.  In some areas of the world, terrorism is socially acceptable and therefore difficult to eliminate.  All concerns listed tie in with the major question of how our actions will affect attitudes toward global citizenship both here in the United States and worldwide.  After identifying these concerns, we moved onto considering approach one.

            Approach one calls for swift and severe military action to root out and destroy all terrorism worldwide.  The general consensus of the group was that while some sort of retaliatory measures were called for, hasty actions are often foolish actions and can be more detrimental than the original attack.  Most agreed that despite the fact that some “universal wrongs” were committed, this does not give the United States license to run rampant on the global stage.  Many feared that these actions would result in more enemies than allies. 

            Rather than resorting to military action, approach two feels that emphasis should be placed on homeland security.  The question was posed as to what priority homeland security takes in our country and how effectively a broad plan could be implemented.  One suggestion, a national identification card, was met with fierce opposition.  Opponents feared increased unnecessary, unwarranted governmental intrusion in day-to-day lives and were concerned about the ease with which someone could forge an ID card.  In addition, some participants voiced concerns with who would be responsible for checking the cards.  The overall opinion was that there is a chance that the United States will become an isolated nation out of fear.

            The intrusive presence of the U.S. in the Middle East and other parts of the world, says approach three, was and continues to be a contributing cause to conflict.  Participants felt that the United States’ ability to remain isolated keeps citizens from understanding the plight of other nations.  Furthermore, it serves to keep us from realizing the misunderstandings that exist.  With globalization and increased world travel, the United States’ ignorance of world issues has become painfully obvious; our unsubstantiated claims of open-mindedness serve to further infuriate and distance us from countries who are vastly different from our own.  Additionally, group members felt that our dependence on countries from whom we are fundamentally different leads to feelings of exploitation and resentment on the part of those countries.  Oil and labor are only two examples of our daily dependence upon underdeveloped countries.  Participants strongly agreed that without education there can never be understanding of our differences and the underlying causes of them.

            The forum ended with group members reflecting upon any tensions that may remain and any trade-offs that they would be willing to make.  The group agreed that we need worldwide education, but conflicts arose as to who would do the educating.  Another question regarding education and understanding was the motivation behind understanding other cultures.  Some feared that we sought to understand other countries simply to be better able to change their way of thinking to be more like our own.  By misunderstanding the cultures of countries in which we maintain a strong presence, we are alienating people in their own homeland.