Reader David R. Murray recently took issue with the article Six Months Later: Have We Forgotten Already?. Last week, I posted a response to Mr. Murray’s objection to my having called Bill Clinton a shallow man. This week, I respond to some of the other points raised in Mr. Murray’s letter. Excerpts from Mr. Murray’s letter appear indented.

In the rest of his article of March 15, Evan Coyne Maloney makes a good point, but he stops short. He argues that American commitment to quelling terrorism will remain strong only if we are reminded of its evils daily. Mr. Maloney even suggests televising Daniel Pearl’s execution to stir American vitriol and harden our resolve. I agree. We have short memories these days and even shorter attention spans. As we as a nation grapple with terrible questions — What happened? Why us? What now? — we must do so with all the facts at top of mind.

But that’s also why Mr. Maloney’s proposal doesn’t go nearly far enough. Not only must scenes of horror against Americans be replayed to fuel our hate, the damage we inflict on others must be shown to temper it. For as many times as the September 11 footage airs, we must see an equal number of innocent Afghanis’ homes destroyed by mis-directed American bombs.

First off, we do not wish for innocent Afghanis to be killed. Unlike our enemy, we do not think people should be killed because of where they were born or which god(s) they do or don’t believe in. Nor does our military seek to kill innocent Afghanis. Even the most vociferous skeptic of our military would admit that civilian casualties only make it more difficult for us to win the war by making the world more suspicious of our war effort.

One of the differences between us and our enemy is that they try to kill innocent civilians, and we try to avoid it. Yet Mr. Murray does not seem to recognize any moral distinction between us and our enemy; he seems to argue that there is no difference between terrorists killing civilians intentionally in a war they started, and us killing civilians accidentally in a war we’d rather not be in.

Now, I do feel for the innocents killed on all sides. And I also agree with Mr. Murray’s point that we should see the destruction we inflict, be it accidental or intentional. However, I don’t think we should see it now. Instead, when the war’s over, our government should make available to the public a full catalog of information about every attack, including videos, photos, eyewitness statements, damage assessments, and death tolls. Academia, the media, and interested members of the public should be free to examine the record and draw their own conclusions.

We should do justice to history by providing a complete and total documentation of the war, whether it reflects well on us or ill. When we have the luxury of peace, our actions will be exposed to the world, and we can be judged then. My guess is that after we’ve saved the free world from evil yet again, they might be inclined to go a little easy on us. In the meantime, until the war is over, it is more important for us to have the strength and resolve to win this war, and to win it soon.

For every profile of a American traumatized by September 11, we must know the despair of a destitute Pakistani, living in squalor, dying young, with no hope of ever knowing comfort or happiness. If we don’t insist on this kind of balance, we’re apt to choose the “quick fix” Mr. Maloney rightly derides.

I’m not sure if I understand this point. I can only assume Mr. Murray is implying that it is somehow America’s fault whenever people in other parts of the world are poor. Are we now responsible for ensuring the comfort and happiness of every person alive? If so, I’d like to point out that Mr. Murray is certainly free to travel to Pakistan to tend to the needs of the destitute. But just because he believes we are responsible for the comfort and happiness of every person on the planet doesn’t make it so.

Mr. Murray, if you do decide to go on a personal mission of peace, please be careful. Remember, Daniel Pearl was killed trying to cover the very people whose despair you think we don’t know enough about. Maybe that has something to do with why we don’t know more about their plight.

It won’t be easy. Proudly simple Americans like President Bush prefer straightforward systems they can understand — systems with one cause and one effect — but that’s not reality. Today’s interconnected world is an infinitely more complex system of inputs and outcomes with overlapping, indistinguishable causes and effects.

In reading Mr. Murray’s response, it appears that he is missing one vital point about the enemy we face. We know the only reason we haven’t yet suffered a nuclear attack at the hands of al Qaeda is that they haven’t yet succeeded in producing a nuclear device and/or delivering it to us. Is there any doubt that the minute they are capable of using a nuclear weapon against us, they will?

This is a race against the clock. We’ve got maybe five years before al Qaeda produces or acquires a nuke. With sponsorship from a states like Iran and Iraq, perhaps it’s only three years. For those of us who live on the island that’s a likely first target for a nuclear attack, there are only two options if we choose not to defeat our enemies: instant death by vaporization, or slow death by radiation poisoning. Perhaps the prevaricating “intellectuals” of the world can tell me which option I should pick.

There is a time to see the world in stark, simple terms, and there is a time to reflect on the complex interrelations of the human species. We’re in a fight for survival, we must destroy our enemy before we ourselves are destroyed. Some of us understand this; people can call us “simple” if that makes them feel superior. But we simpletons apparently see something that smarter people can’t: we must defeat al Qaeda before they get the bomb, or we’re toast. Not recognizing that simple fact is a sign of someone who’s a little too smart for their own good.