Went to the Union Square vigil tonight, prepared with candles and lighters, and got some good pictures.

Unfortunately, the vigil—which was supposed to be a remembrance for those who were killed in the attacks—was hijacked by a loud group that tried to turn it into an anti-war protest. About half of this group looked as though they had attended every protest held since 1968 and had been following personal hygiene tips from Wavy Gravy. The other half were college-aged neo-hippies who wielded their moral outrage with an air of self-congratulation, as though their misguided complaining somehow made them superior to those who disagreed.

I spoke with a few of the protesters, and admit that at times the volume of the discussion rose above that of mere speaking. But I did gain some insight into their beliefs: their statements against war quickly dissolved into their true agenda, which was to point out what they perceived to be America’s many failings and to suggest that somehow we deserved to be attacked due to our policies. The protesters based their arguments on three main points:

• “War is not the answer.” The protesters were certain what the answer was not, but didn’t seem to have any idea what the answer should be. If war isn’t the answer, then we’ve had the correct answer since 1983, when we experienced our first major terrorist attack, which killed 241 Marines in Beirut. Despite us having the correct answer, it did not prevent further attacks; instead, they’ve become more frequent since then. During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks on U.S. targets—including the World Trade Center in 1993—that resulted in over 415 dead and 6,500 injured. Clinton’s response was to talk about holding people accountable and then do nothing substantive about it. We didn’t answer with war then, and look where it got us.
• “We have to understand why they hate us.” Sure, and while we’re at it, let’s try to figure out what Ted Bundy had against women. Not every grievance is justified, and we shouldn’t try to reason with people who act in ways that are clearly not sane. I’m willing to listen to any group that has a grievance against the United States so long as they aren’t trying to kill us in the process. And, people with grievances should be prepared for the possibility that once we’re done listening, we will continue our policies unchanged.
• “People hate us because of U.S. foreign policy.” People may hate us because of our policies, but they attack us because of our size. Scoring a direct hit against a giant ensures international attention to the pet cause of the attacker. Regardless, if we were a tiny country with no power, nobody would give a damn about our policies whether they agreed with them or not. So, what should we do? Should we change our policies out of fear that someone who doesn’t like them will attack us? Great idea! Then, our foreign policy will be determined not by what makes sense for us as a nation, but by whichever group was willing to kill the greatest number of us in order to force a change.

Terrorists are willing to trade their lives to kill as many of us as possible. Given that, we have two choices: kill them first, or be killed by them. If we don’t go to war against terrorists, we’d be giving them more time to devise better plans and build better weapons for killing us. Following the wishes of the protesters would result in more dead Americans. Can the protesters even see this through their excuse-making? Or is it just that they don’t care?

This is not the 1960s, and this war is not Vietnam. Perhaps, one day, the protesters will realize this. Or maybe they’ll just wait for another event—any event, apparently—that will give them a chance to voice their distaste for our country. This time, anyway, nobody is listening.