In response to Mark Lance’s “A cycle of violence, a plea for peace” [Sept. 13]
I have heard Mark Lance’s criticisms of US policy before when I was a student at Georgetown, but never have I heard an argument that seems so untenable.
Take Lance’s primary argument: “For us to really believe that the evil was in killing and harming the innocent would require that we think about all the structures in the world that contribute to those acts, not just regarding terrorism, but war, poverty, torture, occupation, displacement, domestic abuse … To do so would mean thinking about all the things in the world today which contribute to death and harm.”
Huh? So to be mad about terrorism, we have to be mad about “all the things in the world today which contribute to death and harm?”
Firstly, who says we don’t care about these things? I know Professor Lance thinks the United States is a big inconsiderate bully in its policies, but surely he thinks we, the American people, think about world suffering, not to mention pray to God about it and attempt to fight it with charity.
Furthermore, even if, as Lance presumes, we don’t care about world suffering how should that matter? These actions were not caused by poverty, war, etc.; they were caused by the sick, depraved actions of humans. I know Lance argues that suffering is not an excuse, but he misses the point: suffering isn’t even an explanation.
Millions of people around the world suffer in poverty, war, injustice, etc., which they inevitably blame on the United States, yet these millions refrain from mass murder. Suffering is not the cause of these actions; ignorance and hatred are. Our nation touches the world in innumberable ways, both good and bad. We are blamed for both, and hatred of us endures. This hatred is fueled by governments that want to undermine us for geopolitical or philosophical reasons, not solely because we are a bully. Many of them encourage their people to believe that we are mean and cruel and that our good economic fortune necessitates their misfortune. This is “why our country is targeted rather than, say Denmark.”
This hatred, born through ignorance, is the source of the violence, not suffering.
Furthermore, we as a nation are not omnipotent. We cannot end “war, poverty, torture, occupation, displacement, domestic abuse.”
Nor can we effectively try without enduring enormous flak from the world community. When we withdraw from a region, we are accused of isolationism; when we engage a region we are called hegemonic. Does Professor Lance think the United States, or any western power, has the ability to control “war, poverty, torture, occupation, displacement, domestic abuse.” Is it even the responsibility of our state to try?
Lance’s presumption that we must feel for all if we are to feel for ourselves is as impractical as it is overdemanding. We do feel for all. Oftentimes we can only help and protect ourselves. Our motives in our anger are irrelevant given the disconnect between our conscience and the job of the state.
I too would like a world of “justice, peace, freedom for all.” But before I “consider what it would mean to seek an end to killing and harm,” please tell me Professor Lance: What conditions you would set for the use of force, if ever? Is it to never be used in your search for justice, peace and freedom for the entire world?
Eric Grey (CAS ‘99)
