holy fucking shit

i'm not going to repeat what you've all heard hundreds of times already today. the attack on the world trade center and the pentagon is a tragedy. there are people more eloquent than me to tell you about it.

i just wanted to note how similar my experience was this morning to my experience of hearing the murrah federal building in oklahoma city had been blown up. then, and now, i was getting ready to leave for school. then, i was watching the news on tv, wanting to hear the weather. today, i was listening to the news on public radio. both times, the anchor broke into the on-air story to give the news. i watched/listened in disbelief: is this really happening? again?

i also want to second kath mccall's thoughts about pilots. my father is also a pilot. he's on vacation this week, biking in vermont. otherwise, i would be wondering about his safety, too. like kath mccall, i know my father's reaction to a situation like the one i'm sure the united and american airlines pilots faced would be calm, professional, and heroic. he would try his best to save the plane and the people on it, but if it became clear that to avoid an even larger tragedy, he'd have to sacrifice his plane, his passengers, and his life, i'm sure he would do it.

[later: 5pm 12 september 2001] i am offended, like i have only rarely been before. i am offended that george w. bush thinks that what i am thinking about right now is revenge. in his first two addresses to the american people, he used the phrase "hunt down." as much as i would like to see the person or group responsible for this tragedy held responsible, i do not want to sacrifice my humanity and compassion in a swell of rage and revenge. around me, on tv and on the street, i hear people saying that we should take military action against afghanistan; that we should treat this as an act of war. isn't that what the israelis and palestinians are doing? reacting without thinking of the consequences of violence as an answer to violence? even if it turns out that osama bin laden was behind this, don't we owe it to our constitution, to the principles on which this country was built, to act on evidence and reason rather than emotion and speculation?

[later: 15 september, 5:39pm] as the events of tuesday, and the aftermath, have unfolded, i've noticed the stages of a crisis. i think i've seen this before, but never so clearly. stage 1: information lust and shock. while the crisis is still happening, people just want to know what's going on. what's happening? to who? where? how? stage 2: questions and wild speculation. the events themselves have ended, and there is now time for questions. who did this? why? how? what crack did they slip through? group A did this. person B did this. government C told people D to do this. group F was funded by person G. they hate us. they want us to suffer. they are starting a war. they have disappeared. they are being protected. they. us. stage 3: mourning. as the wild speculation calmes down, and the human toll becomes clearer, there is time for mourning. for the people who have died and the innocence that has been lost. stage 4: resolve. the victims are being buried, life is returning (at least superficially) to normal. now is when real information about what happened starts to come out, and plans get made for what to do about it. retribution and rebuilding become the topics of intelligent conversation (not just knee-jerk reaction).

i've seen these stages in the last 4 days. they overlap somewhat. they blend into each other. but they're clear. humans are resilient (one of our finest qualities). we will forget just how painful these days were. we weren't built to remember pain and hurt in the same vivid colors in which they were originally experienced. this is good. this is part of why we have flourished through the millenia.

[later: 17 september, 1:45pm] to go to war or not to go to war? i've been getting a lot of emails recently debating the pros and cons (pronouced by a ukrainian acquaitance of mine as /prahz/ and /konz/) of going to war with afghanistan/bombing the shit out of afghanistan. i fear that where the country seems to be headed, that is, toward bombing the bejeezus out of afghanistan, will make things much, much worse. based on what i've read of osama bin laden's agenda, what he wants more than anything is for the West to go to war with Islam (as represented by him and is psychotic brethern, NOT as represented by the millions of peaceful, decent, everyday muslims out there). if we bomb afghanistan, we will make what is now a terrible life for regular afghans worse (not that it can get much worse, from what i've read). we will not do a good job of taking out the taliban and bin laden's crew--they will have good place to hide. we will succeed only in giving bin laden and his zealots a cause celebre; they will have an easier time raising an army; they will have an easier time convincing men to sacrifice their lives in the great fight against capitalism and democracy. bin laden is convinced that in an all-out war between his folks and our folks, he'd win. i doubt that, but in the process of crushing him, thousands of people would die. soldiers and civilians both. bin laden doesn't care about his people, but we care about ours. are we really ready to send thousands of people to their deaths against him? are we ready to give bin laden what he wants?

i don't know what the alternative is, but i think there must be one. there must be some other way than a huge bloody war. there MUST.

i don't envy the job of the leaders of our country and the rest of the non-taliban world. i'm glad that it's not ME who has to make this decision.

[later: 18 september, 12:45pm] i've been reading a lot of online debates about going to war. good idea? bad idea? on the one hand, War Is Bad. on the other hand, i do think there are times, given the world we live in, that's it's necessary to go to war. osama bin laden and his crew, and the taliban, are Bad People. we're talking Bad People for real; they do undeniably Bad Stuff (check here and here for interesting reading on the taliban and o.b.l., respectively). this is NOT kuwait. not only have they (presumably they) killed thousands of people in new york and virginia (not washington, folks! the pentagon is in virginia! 20 mins from where i grew up) and pennsylvania, but their policies and "government" has claimed many many more lives in afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. life in afghanistan is terrible for ordinary afghans. schools? healthcare? food? freedom? rights? check elsewhere, they don't got 'em in afghanistan. this may be one of those times when it's necessary to go to war. [note: this is a change from my previous position. now, i'm not sure that there is an alternative solution. though i'm open to ideas, certainly.]

if we're going to go to war, we can't be half-assed about it. osama's and the taliban's folks will fight HARD. they don't care if they die. they will be tough to beat. but, the u.s. can crush them, if we don't hold back. if we open a big can o' whoopass on the taliban, lots of innocent people will die. afghans who hate the taliban more than we ever could, afghans who are just trying to scratch out a liveable existance with their familes, will die. but to crush the taliban, that's what will have to happen. trying to conduct a war, attacking only the military, would be a big waste of time and human life. as we kill soldiers, more will rise to take their places. if we go in and level the whole country, we might get somewhere. innocent people will die. but perhaps, as horrible as this thought is, perhaps it is better (better?) in the grand scheme to sacrifice many now for even more in the future. i don't know. i'm not afgani. i'm not muslim. i'm lucky enough to have been brought up in the best place and time for a woman to live. i have NO IDEA what life is really like there. but people have been known, throughout history, to sacrifice the present for the future.

if we go in to whatever future conflict dubya and his cronies are planning with guns ablazin', and don't let ourselves be deterred by the suffering we will inflict, we might be able to make that part of the world a liveable place again. maybe.

i don't want to go to war. i wish we could all just get along. i fear, however, that war is the only thing that will rid the world of the scourge that is the cult of osama.

[later: 21 september, 1:10am] i don't know anymore. i just don't know. "infinite justice." "ground troops." "bomb them back into the stone age." "peace." "war against terrorism." "united we stand." "protracted military action." "alternatives." "heros." i don't know what to think. i'm overwhelmed.

[later: 25 september, 7:04pm] okay. here's what i want to happen. i want BOTH the anxious doves and AND the bloodthirsty hawks to realize that the right answer is (as it ALWAYS is) somewhere in the middle. there are some times when a military response is necessary. wwii was one of those occasions: if we (and the rest of the sane world) hadn't busted out against hitler, what would the world be like today? eh? that said, bombing all of the muslim world into powder is also not the right response--there are so many innocent people living innocent lives who we MUST consider.

so, the answer must be somewhere in the middle. i think we must respond forcefully to this attack. we have been ATTACKED, people! new york city is STILL SMOKING. we cannot just sit back and convene committees on "sanctions."

i read somewhere a good way to think about the question of when it might be justifiable to use deadly force: imagine you are a sniper, armed, in position to take out a guy with a bomb who is threatening to take out an entire playground full of kindergarteners. you have a good shot, no children in the way, but you will have to kill him. imagine that. would you pull the trigger? for most of us, i'd wager, the answer would be, "yes, i could end one man's life to save many others, but i would forever question whether there could have been another way." okay, from that situation, it seems straightforward to see how it might be justifiable to end the lives of many, to save even more. americans and afghans. and many more, too.

before we start shooting, though, i want us to be sure who we're shooting at and VERY sure that they are the ones responsible. killing just because we're angry won't solve anything. it'll just make more people angry. we could also use a good dose of self-reflection: what (besides allowing our women to vote, learn, and dress the way they want) did we do to arouse the anger of the people that did this? of the things we did, what could we change (without sacrificing our national values) about our policies to make them less angry?

is this a cause worth dying for? that question should factor into all of our opinions... for me, this cause (avenging the attack and trying to prevent future ones) is totally intertwined with the treatment of non-conforming men and all women in places like afghanistan. that may very well be a cause worth dying for. are you going to call me on it? would i personally enlist in the military? i doubt it, and maybe that's hypocritical, but lemme try to rationalize: i think (and this may be QUITE immodest) that i am probably more valuable as an intelligent, thinking member of society than as a soldier. i am not strong, nor fast, nor do i know anything about weaponry. i would not take orders easily. i am not cut out for the military. i could, however, serve the effort in other ways (not quite sure what, specifically, since i have training in almost nothing other than the dusty discipline of psycholinguistics). would i be willing to die for this cause? i don't know. however, note that 'i don't know' is not, at least, a 'no.'

[later: 2 december, 6:40pm] okay, it's been a while. a lot has happened since i last updated this page. we've been at war with the taliban for many weeks now. we bombed from the air and apparently sent in ground troops as well (elite troops like the army rangers and the green berets). the northern alliance soldiers, afghans who disagree with how the taliban were running things, are doing most of the fighting and dying. but man, are they ever effective. they've taken over most of the cities in afghanistan from the taliban, including kabul, mazar-e sharif, and kunduz; the taliban are running. in cities liberated from taliban control, men are shaving their beards and listening to music for the first time in years. women are coming out from under their burqas. the pictures are of happy people.

leaders from various afghan tribes have met in bonn to discuss an interim (at least) government for afghanistan. i hope they can peacefully agree on and execute a government. afghanistan needs peace. i hope life for afghans is better in the future, with the taliban gone. i hope another terrible regime doesn't take the taliban's place. we shall see, but for now i'm cautiously optimistic about the result of our collective (and in 'our' i'm including all the western nations that are participating in this war, and the local fighters and planners as well) efforts.