September 11, Crisis Resolution

Articles

Interviews

Letters

Responses to September 11th

Speeches

To Combat Terrorism We Must Understand It: The Need For A National Commission On The Causes And Prevention Of Terrorism

Richard E. Rubenstein
Prof. of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs
Op-Ed Piece, September 15, 2001

To combat terrorism we must understand it. To understand it we must study it. That is why President Bush should now consider appointing a National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Terrorism.

In 1969, as a young college teacher in Chicago, I helped write one of the reports on violence in America published by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, known as the Eisenhower Commission. President Lyndon Johnson appointed that blue-ribbon panel in response to a decade of civil disorder featuring race riots, stormy anti-war demonstrations, and violent acts of crime, terrorism, and police brutality. Chaired by Milton Eisenhower, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s brother and former president of Johns Hopkins University, it mobilized the intellectual resources of scholars, journalists, community activists, and policymakers to try to gain a better understanding of the causes of civil violence, and to develop a basis for crafting long-range policies aimed at eliminating or mitigating those causes. Although ridiculed at first as a meaningless "academic" exercise, the Commission’s studies actually helped Americans understand what was causing so much turmoil at home, and led to important changes in public attitudes and legislative policies.

Now it is time to consider creating a similar body to study and make recommendations with regard to the causes and prevention of terrorism. At present, with echoes of the terrible events of September 11th still ringing in our ears, it seems impossible to do more than "react" to these atrocities in the most immediate manner. But we discovered in the sixties that ill considered, short-term reactions made problems worse rather than solving them. Racial disorders, police riots, and violent protests could not be "stamped out" by rhetorical declarations or acts of force. What was needed was the sort of understanding that is in short supply when people are reacting out of fear, grief, or rage. Then, as now, effective long-range policies to combat violence required a deeper comprehension of the reasons people engage in violent acts and the full range of policy options available to prevent the violence from continuing or escalating.

Because I once wrote a book about terrorism, journalists, students, and friends have been calling me since September 11th to answer all sorts of questions. How could the perpetrators commit such heinous acts? What motives could possibly induce sane human beings to kill thousands of innocent civilians, as well as destroying themselves? Why do some people in other countries celebrate these atrocities? What responses to this sort of violence are likely to be effective in the short run? In the long run?

I gave the answers that seemed sensible to me, some of which proved controversial. (For example, I suggested that we could not go on exporting weapons to all comers and supporting "friendly" terrorist groups around the world without eventually paying a terrible price.) But the truth is, we don’t know very much about the causes and prevention of this sort of violence. Most of our "terrorism experts" are actually experts in counter-terrorism – that is, immediate military and intelligence responses to some current threat. When it comes to understanding the psychology of terrorism, the relationship between violence and religious ideology, the politics of anti-Western movements, or the deeper social and economic causes of terrorist violence, our knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete. And when it comes to evaluating the policy options available to deal with terrorism on a long-range basis, we are totally in the dark.

A National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Terrorism could begin to help us solve these problems. Its tasks would be to compile and synthesize existing studies of terrorism, to commission additional studies as needed, develop imaginative policy alternatives, and evaluate their potential effectiveness in light of the best learning available. Chaired by a highly respected figure, it could be composed of a well-chosen panel of scholars and public officials, and staffed by the best researchers and policy analysts in the country. Like the Eisenhower Commission, it could be organized quickly and given a relatively short period (one year or so) in which to complete its work. And, like that panel, it should be directed to hold public hearings and publish all its backup reports.

What we need in this time of crisis and confusion is a new national conversation about the terrorist threat and how to deal with it. The proposed commission could help us begin that vital conversation. If our leaders don’t create it, we ought to begin thinking about how to create it ourselves.