The problem with big revenge
By Dana Grayson

On Friday September 14, Congress passed legislation giving President Bush "the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force" against any nation, organization, or person it decides is responsible in planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. Intended to deter future terrorist acts, the legislation gives all decision-making power to one man who is angry and looking to appease the rightfully upset people of the U.S.

But Americans needs to step back from their anger and desires for revenge. Such impulses can only lead to more deaths. The pain and suffering that Americans are currently enduring will not be overcome easily, but violent retaliation is not the answer. Instead, Americans need to understand why these attacks were made in the first place, even if that means considering ways the U.S. may have contributed to the despicable acts of September 11.

It’s difficult to see things through the eyes of "the enemy." But Americans should not forget that it was the United States that violently attacked Palestinians in support of Israel, funded Israel’s missile attack on Lebanon in 1996, launched missile attacks on Afghanistan following the bombing of U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998. Though these actions may seem justified -- whether as acts in support of Israel or in retaliation for violence against the U.S. -- they also led to further loss of civilian life. And with those many deaths came a deep resentment towards America.

One of the reasons why the United States is concerned with the Middle East is due to oil. However, if America were to shift some of the time and money usually spent on defense to research into alternative sources of energy, perhaps America wouldn’t have so much at stake in the Middle East. Terrorism has plagued the world for centuries and shows no signs of abatement despite attempts to fight back with military action. There may not be a definitive solution to the problem of terrorism, but it is not wise to fuel the anger of terrorists by committing further violent atrocities against whomever the US determines to be "the enemy." Instead, the U.S. and its allies should try to understand the systematic causes of terrorism, and consider making changes in its foreign policy, which in the past has often led the U.S. to support nations under dictatorships which are just as terrible as those it is fighting against. The U.S. needs to strive towards a foreign policy that will cultivate the growth of real democracies instead of supporting nations who are willing to resort to the same types of violence that it condemns. While this concept may seem highly idealistic in today’s world, it is perhaps more idealistic to think that America can end terrorism and violence through violence.

So before the United States decides to get its big revenge and destroy a country, one that is a fraction of America’s size and full of innocent people who just happen to be of the same race and religion as a group of terrorists, Americans should consider what their country will be like if they have to fight a war on their own turf in an age where they have enough power to blow up the world six times over. Americans should not seek revenge. What we need is a non-violent solution.

Dana Grayson is an NYU senior majoring in journalism