The day after, a grieving and furious America resembled a giant with fists full of missiles and no one to direct them against; moreover, the world we live in will become neither a safer nor a more just place when American anger soon finds a target.
Americans deservedly have the reputation of not understanding the rest of the world very well or showing much interest in it. This isn't due to stupidity or ignorance: the reason is that the power of their country to influence the rest of the world is far greater than the ability of other countries to make much of a difference in the life of the average American. Before September 11 it was possible to live well in America as if the rest of the world didn't exist. If Osama bin Laden truly is the architect of the colossal crime committed against America on September 11, then he deserves "credit" that the Americans now know what they could comfortably ignore before that date. They know the true size of the hatred and resentment that a part of the rest of the world harbors toward America.
For the most part secure between two oceans, Americans have viewed foreigners for decades with a mixture of suspicion and superiority, undecided between isolationism and interventionism. Since the fall of the Berlin wall they have lived in a sort of undefined state of global triumphalism, rejoicing in their role of the sole remaining superpower and enjoying their growing material wealth. From a Belgrade perspective it may sound hopelessly naïve but the average American has always believed his foreign policy elite when it sought to convince him that the whole answer to the question "why do they hate us" can be summed up in "because they envy us". The hatred that inspired the kamikazes that attacked America on September 11, however, was not nurtured by envy.
The symbols and centers of American rule over the world were attacked but the terrorist action carried out that horrible Tuesday has another, deeper motive and significance. Since the Vietnam War Americans have had an ideal concept of war that they have come close to achieving in recent years - to realize their strategic goals and protect their national interests without spilling a drop of American blood. This is well known to everyone in Yugoslavia after months spent listening to the explosions of American bombs and American jubilation because the altitude from which those bombs were spilled was sufficient to shield both American pilots and their planes from danger. This is well known to everyone who has followed developments in Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia... Americans appear on the scene with rhetoric chock-full of noble intentions and high goals but they are not prepared to die for the ideals by which they swear. At best, they are ready to sacrifice foreign civilian victims for their principles while those same principles are apparently not worth the lives of American soldiers. If Osama bin Laden is behind the attack on America, then bin Laden has hit the target of targets with the most spectacular and most effective terrorist act of all time.
That is the reason why no one immediately came forward to claim responsibility for this faultlessly executed terrorist act that any terrorist worthy of the name would be proud to claim. Here the goal was not to achieve political points or to increase the political influence of some group or state, which is normally the purpose of terrorism. Here the goal was to kill Americans, destroy what is American and undermine Americanism.
It is usually said that terrorism is the choice weapon of the weak against the powerful. While it is true that Osama bin Laden (if he is behind this crime) is hardly poor (he comes from a wealthy Saudi family and personally inherited $300 million), his revenge against the powerful and wealthy is especially effective in a sort of morbid, evil way. Bin Laden has carried out a sort of perfect crime, not because of a lack of evidence linking him to it but because he defeated the American forces, which have the most expensive and most powerful weapons in the world at their disposal, using their own airplanes.
He defeated a country that is continuously arming itself with the most expensive technology that can be used for destructive purposes using its own commercial airplanes directed against its own symbols of power. Not only did he avoid having to invest in expensive "Tomahawks" but he cashed in on the "added value" of a product made by domestic producers by Islamic religious fanatics. The message to America was not only that her wealth and power are futile despite her ability to afford the most expensive anti-missile shield in the world but also that she is defenseless from her own civilian airplanes which "in the right hands" can become more lethal than the most expensive and most sophisticated weapons.
It is as if bin Laden also sent figurative expressions into battle against the Americans. At this moment they are confronted not only with an enemy with no face or country but even the country where bin Laden is hiding is in itself some type of ironic commentary. The Americans are indirectly responsible for the creation of the Taliban regime.
Just as they previously created both bin Laden as a fighter against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and just as they previously assisted Saddam Hussein when they needed an ally against the Iranian regime. Before September 11 the average American neither knew much about these things nor cared much about them.
However, what must be of concern even to those who are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with America in the war against terrorism is that on the day after the massacre in New York, the leading world newspaper the "New York Times" informed its readers in an editorial that "it is difficult to overcome the hatred toward Western civilization and cultural values which nourish terrorism". The message of this editorial in effect is that this is a war between American values, Western culture and civilization, against "their" values and fanaticism. This can be also be interpreted as a war between civilization and barbarism.
The explanation is incomplete. Due to a lack of interest in the external world, the Americans apparently don't know enough about the fact that somewhere out there, in the rest of the world, the battle is not always fought by "Western values" but by American guns that destroy homes and bridges, kill children and innocent people in the name of those values. In other words, Americans are sometimes hated not because they represent "Western values" but for completely mundane reasons. Because in concrete instances they have implemented foreign policies and perpetrated violence against foreign countries and peoples, in a very tangible manner, in order to promote their concrete interests, not always in the name of the highest values.
America, no matter how charged with pathos this may sound, sowed the seeds of tempest itself. It is no coincidence that the day after the attack the American press quoted Lav Trotsky on war: "You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you." Those who previously had no interest in both foreign policy and terrorism are now discovering that terrorism is interested in them. In this war, experts and politicians repeat endlessly, there are no neutral observers. This war cannot be waged remotely nor using aseptic means and observed from a safe distance.
The Americans are like every other people in the world: when you cut them, they bleed; when you attack them, they close ranks around their leader, their flag and their national history. And they call for revenge. In thousands of American suburbs, in "suburbia" itself, the night between Tuesday and Wednesday saw the dawning of American flags in front of family homes. The American anthem is being sung in churches (ten times in a row in one church in Milwaukee, we learned). In the papers and in the speeches of politicians one can hear comparisons with Pearl Harbor. The differences are obvious; Pearl Harbor is from another historical film where the enemy wore uniforms with insignia and where recognizable opponents fought for territory, prestige and influence. However, there are some similarities as well: both Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center in their own time are symbols of American defeat later transformed into triumph.
Those among us who perhaps don't like America and think that this is a good time to rejoice over its suffering are wrong. Of course, it made sense for those of us here to demand that America stop destroying our bridges in the name of humanitariianism and that it treat us in accordance with American values, Western values, which we too advocated and in which we believe. We are to some extent responsible for protecting Western values in this part of "the rest of the world" even when America is the one trampling them. But in the world we live in, America, which is not the fortress that it thought it was (Fortress America), nevertheless represents a bastion of cultural, moral and civilizational values that we share. It is not in our interest for America to be reduced to a state of panicked siege. It is realistic to expect that America is embittered because the 30 billion dollars it spends on intelligence and counterintelligence has not brought it greater safety and better protection. However, despite all criticisms which we justifiably sometimes address to the United States, it is hardly a cause for joy that the American defense budget will now jump sky high, that the instinct for self-preservation will force America to even more selfishly concern herself only with her own interests. There is no reason to rejoice that during what is a very difficult time for us, when we are dependent on the goodwill of creditors, the world may be facing an economic recession; lack of trust and enmity will take over international affairs; and the Americans, desiring to infiltrate terrorist groups, will conduct "secret operations" of questionable legality. Even a reduction in the degree of respect for and protection of civil liberties within America represents a danger to the rest of the world. Let alone the calls of American politicians for revenge against countries that may not even be directly involved in terrorist actions but are not sufficiently energetic in their battle against terrorists. The supposedly "liberal" columnist of the "New York Times", Anthony Lewis, on Wednesday called for Americans to also consider as targets those countries that are unprepared to implement the same antiterrorist measures as America. Richard Holbrooke is proposing a declaration of war against countries aiding terrorists. Others are seeking the introduction of draconian laws that pose a danger to civil liberties.
There is always the danger that a country under threat itself performs the job of its enemies and devours its own freedom-loving essence. In Milwaukee one can hear demands - not from officials but among citizens - for the creation of detention camps for citizens of Arab origin. On Tuesday evening the city cancelled an Arab-American festival scheduled for the following weekend. The world became a more dangerous place after September 11. And not only for Americans.