Thursday, January 26, 2012

Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Attacks: A Fair Comparison?


After reading Sontag’s article, I began to consider the comparison she made between 9/11 and the attacks on Pearl Harbor.  To begin with, I’m not sure that I feel the comparison is a fair one because the attacks were of such different nature: Pearl Harbor was a military attack, while 9/11 obviously targeted citizens.  Sontag, in my opinion, is essentially comparing apples to oranges.  She notes that the U.S. necessarily held “great commemorative ceremonies” after 9/11 but probably not after Pearl Harbor to “keep up morale”; moreover, she insists that America’s response to Pearl Harbor was a “real war” but the response to 9/11 was a “phantom war”.   While I understand Sontag’s reasoning for referencing Pearl Harbor because both 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were “lethal surprise attack[s]” in our nation’s history, I personally believe that the comparison is not justified because the circumstances for each was so different from the other.  I’m curious to know if anyone else agrees or disagrees.

6 comments:

  1. I do agree with your assessment of Sontag's reasoning, and I do agree that by comparing Pearl Harbor to 9/11, she is making a bit of a mistake. 9/11 was an attack that specifically targeted civilians. In fact, Osama bin Laden made it quite clear that there would be no distinction made... any person that called themselves an American should be killed, according to him. By making these statements, I think that Osama bin Laden, and those that follow him, declared themselves as enemies of America. Her comment that the war on terror is a "phantom war" is kind of insulting because to me, a war is usually declared by one country when it feels that its citizens are in danger by an enemy. I think that the war on terror was certainly justified, and I believe that it is just as real as World War II was. And I definitely think that if someone were to ask our troops if the war on terror was a "real war," I believe that their answer would be a yes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I certainly agree that the comparison is not appropriate; however, I believe that the author is referring more to the idea of a "war", or its legitimacy (a just war?). I personally think that she is absolutely right when she says that the US could use other, more peaceful methods of capturing the ones behind the horrific attacks of 9/11, therefore, I suggest thinking of it this way-- US, as world hegemony, certainly should stand as an outstanding example for all other world states to follow. However, as devastating as the attacks were, a so called "just war" sure is not the best way of promoting ideas such as freedom, democracy and basic human rights. Of course, innocent civilians were targeted on 9/11; however, does that mean that an attack on a country, in search of a terrorist organization (which does not include a whole nation, whereas a declaration of war is referring to the state as a whole) is the correct way of searching for them? That is, when we go to war with a goal of capturing a leader with anti-American ideologies, is it fair, or yet 'just' to spot innocent civilians, whereas, members of Al-Qaeda can be hiding absolutely anywhere. Possibly even in a neighboring country?!

    ReplyDelete
  3. We'll talk more about this debate, but I believe John and Sona have articulated the Elshtain and Sontag sides fairly well here. Thank you! More soon...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ana, isn't Sontag's point, at least in part, that the two cannot be compared. We could declare war against Japan, but against whom do we declare war after the attacks of September 11? The closest we might come is declaring war against the Taliban in Afghanistan for permitting bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a terrorist training ground. Declaring war against terror is not the same as declaring war Japan. It is also worth thinking about whether the use of a "war" framework didn't give bin Laden exactly what he wanted. He had declared war on the U.S., so we responded on his terms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that Sontag is correct in calling this "War on Terror" a phantom war. With no direct objective of any sort, other than ending terrorism, we will never be able to call ourselves victorious. I have talked extensively with one of my friends who was a Marine in Afghanistan, and although he is 200% supportive of his brothers in arms, his stories don't speak of war, they tell the tales of young American soldiers entering the homes of innocent civilians looking for "terrorists", and friends being killed by IEDs. If you want to call this a real war, try to imagine waking up tomorrow and seeing on CNN that the United States has won the "War on Terror" and that terrorism is over. If you are a rational human being, and you cannot picture this, then you might want to reconsider the use of the word "war" to describe the military operations in the Middle East. Most Wars, including WWII end in either a treaty, a takeover, or with one side surrendering. There is nothing to take over, the Taliban surrendering seems as unlikely as anything, and the United States signing a peace treaty with the Taliban would never happen. This war is as Sontag says, a "declaration of the extension of power" of the United States Government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would have to agree the two cannot be compared. One being an attach by an obvious and militant opponent while the other just a small group of radicals out to "change the world". I would argue that even though both groups objectives were to strike fear into their enemy their motives were different. The Japanese made a strategic military decision to strike Pearl Harbor because is was a large military base and many of the US's ships would be destroyed. This is a strategic decision for war. However, al Qaeda, while wanting to instill fear into their enemy, attacked the WTC in order to kill as many people as possible. There motives were not as obviously militaristic as the Japanese. Also, they are more of an hidden opponent, in contrast to the Japanese. Majorly, what the Japanese and al Qaeda were both attacking for were different things.

    ReplyDelete