Issue How is the "war on terrorism" different from or similar to other conflicts we have fought in the past? Starter Part I: "Look at that destruction, that massive, senseless, cruel loss of life. . .and then I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism. You're either with civilization or with terrorists. On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions, and mass murder. We're right and they're wrong. It's as simple as that." Excerpt from New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's Address to the United Nations General Assembly on Combating Terrorism, Monday, October 1, 2001 Part II: "One way in which this conflict is indeed different is that there is no antiwar movement to speak of. For nearly half a century-from 1953, when the guns fell silent in Korea, until this year-the United States never went to war, whether directly or by proxy, without significant domestic opposition. Vietnam is the most obvious example. But congressional Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the Gulf War under the first President Bush, and the Bosnia and Kosovo interventions under President Clinton faced similar objections from Republicans. Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, Somalia—all engendered protest, often substantial and well organized. This time there has been nothing of the kind. Apart from traditional pacifists, who oppose any use of force on principle, and a tiny handful of reflexive Rip Van Winkles, almost no one objects, in broad outline, to the aims and methods of the antiterrorism campaign. . . .To be sure, there have been Americans who have suggested that American policies, arrogance, and heedlessness nourished the soil in which terrorism has grown. But even these critics, with very few exceptions, have been careful to affirm that none of this could possibly justify either the attacks themselves or a failure to respond vigorously to them. The United States has not taken up its campaign against terrorism as a matter of choice, or in pursuit of some tertiary policy goal that is subject to rational questioning. There has been no real antiwar movement since September 11, 2001, for the same reason that there was none after December 7, 1941." Excerpt from Hendrik Hertzberg, "Differences," in The New Yorker (December 3, 2001) ©2001, Conde Nast Publications. All rights reserved. Used with the permission of The New Yorker. Focus Questions Mayor Giuliani draws a clear contrast between civilization, on the one hand, and terrorism, on the other, asserting that "there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism. You're either with civilization or with terrorism." At the same time, Hendrik Hertzberg acknowledges that "there have been Americans who have suggested that American policies, arrogance, and heedlessness nourished the soil in which terrorism has grown," although most have affirmed that this did not justify the September 11 attacks. To what extent - if at all - can one remain "with civilization" while criticizing American policies that might have contributed to the growth of terrorism? Do you think such criticism is appropriate at this time? Hertzberg states that "there has been no real antiwar movement since September 11, 2001, for the same reason that there was none after December 7, 1941 [the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor]." Do you agree with Hertzberg's comparison of the September 11 attacks and the attack on Pearl Harbor? Are we confronting circumstances similar to those we confronted during World War II? Why or why not? Is our current military engagement against terrorism, and the domestic response to it, different from other military engagements that have provoked opposition? Why or why not? America at War Pathway: 1  2  3  4  5  6  All (.pdf) Note: The views expressed here have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, and accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association, nor do they represent the official position or policies of the ABA Standing Committee on Public Education.