This is the last in a series of replies ([1], [2]) to reader David R. Murray’s letter in response to the article Six Months Later: Have We Forgotten Already?. Excerpts from Mr. Murray’s letter appear indented:

There’s a reason for what happened on September 11 and there will be an outcome from how we respond. Those factors must also be considered in formulating our response.

We’ve all seen bin Laden’s cave videos, we know his reasons...at least we know the reasons he gives his followers. But, a reason is not the same as a valid justification. Unless you believe that bin Laden’s actions were justified, his reasons simply don’t matter. And we certainly shouldn’t change our behavior out of deference to his “reasons”.

American political and economic dominance is a testament to our ingenuity and pluck, but it also carries an enormous responsibility — one we have recently shirked. We must re-engage in the Middle East and engage at all in Africa. We must work to alleviate profound poverty at home and abroad. We must support efforts building civil society and promoting justice broadly defined.

The United States is extremely generous with the rest of the world...we have been since World War II, when we rebuilt our allies and enemies alike. Since then, the United States has handed out over $1,000,000,000,000 in foreign aid, and that number only includes money from the Federal government, not the billions in charitable contributions that we’ve also given as private citizens.

Although I’ve always taken pride in the generosity of our nation, I don’t agree with the notion that alleviating poverty abroad is a responsibility of the United States government. Foreign aid is a privilege granted to the recipient, not a responsibility incumbent upon the giver. Apparently, though, in the minds of some, our recurring generosity has become an obligation, a responsibility. I disagree; if we decide to help others, it will be out of the kindness of our hearts, not out of a false sense of duty that some people try to impose on us.

Mr. Murray seems to think that if we handed out more money, the rest of the world would like us more. What he doesn’t realize is that some countries—including the ones that bred our attackers—view the United States skeptically; these countries may accept money from us, but that doesn’t mean they’ll like us. Any re-engagement beyond handing out money would be viewed as meddling, and eventually this meddling would be used as the excuse for the next terrorist attack.

There are other organizations much better suited for the kind of involvement that Mr. Murray seeks: namely, the United Nations. When we are active in world affairs, we’re accused of unilateralism. When we are not active in world affairs, we’re accused of isolationism. The U.N. doesn’t suffer from this Catch-22. According to the U.N. Charter, part of the organization’s purpose is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “to promote social progress and better standards of life”. In other words, the U.N. explicitly states that its purpose is to do the very things that Mr. Murray expects the United States to do. Isn’t it the U.N., then, that Mr. Murray should accuse of shirking its responsibilities?

At the very least, before we decide to shell out even more in foreign aid, we need to determine whether our prior spending been effective. Unfortunately, according to the U.N., it has not; 70 countries that have been the beneficiaries of our largesse are poorer now than they were in 1980. Clearly, generosity alone does not alleviate poverty. Handing out money no-questions-asked often has no effect, and sometimes ends up harming the very people we’re trying to help. In the 1980s, the United States sent food and money to Africa in hopes of alleviating famine. Instead of going to the starving masses, our donations often ended up in the hands of dictators and the military, strengthening the despots who caused the problems in the first place.

One of the problems is that we don’t ask much of the countries into which we were pouring our money. If we’re going to give money to a country, then we’d better expect them to respect certain standards of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, property rights, and democracy. If there is one way the United States can help the rest of the world, it is by spreading freedom far and wide. I will support sending foreign aid to any Islamic state that gives its citizens the rights we enjoy here. Unfortunately, such states are rather hard to find.

And, yes, we must retaliate for September 11, but only in self-defense, not as part of a half-baked war against everything Muslim between Israel and Indonesia.

Our enemies would like the world to believe that our war is a war against Islam. Apparently, Mr. Murray has bought into their propoganda. If Mr. Murray has listened to anything that President Bush has said, or if has paid any attention to the war thus far, he could not possibly make the claim that this is a “war against everything Muslim between Israel and Indonesia”.

As for the charge that the war is “half-baked”...well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Whenever I hear someone argue against the war, I wonder what solution they would propose. How should we have responded to the attacks of September 11th? To me, the best self-defense is to go after the people who’ve declared their intention to destroy us. Is that a bad idea? For all the criticism I’ve heard about the war, I have yet to hear anyone propose a viable alternative. Criticizing without proposing an alternative is intellectual laziness.

Mr. Maloney is right that our short-term-memory culture could cause us to forget the horrors of September 11. But if his solution only incites rage without fostering understanding, then no memory is better than half.

I think Mr. Murray underestimates the American people if he believes that we would react with blind rage merely by witnessing the attacks against us. In fact, many New Yorkers, including myself, witnessed the attacks in person before seeing it endlessly for days on the news. Yet not once have I heard of a single incident here in New York City where someone was attacked for being Arab or Muslim. A large, beautiful mosque sits just blocks from my apartment, and it has remained free from vandalism and protest.
And yet, for some reason, despite only a handful of revenge crimes nationwide (all of which immediately drew strong and unambiguous condemnation from the President on down), we still must endure lecturing from the Left about tolerance.

Contrast this with the reaction an American would get walking down the street in, say, western Pakistan, Iran, or Iraq. Just the other day, the State Department warned all Americans living in Saudi Arabia—our alleged ally—to stay indoors, fearing attack from radical Islamic demonstrators. There are some places in the world where, unlike America, certain people aren’t welcome. We know that, and we stay away. Only the brave ones like Daniel Pearl put themselves in harm’s way. Ironically, Daniel Pearl was killed while trying to tell the story of the destitute Pakistani whose plight Mr. Murray wants us to understand.

We as a nation have reacted with calm determination, if you ask me. After suffering the attacks of September 11th, I could have understood an American wanting to participate in a rowdy demonstration where enemy leaders were burned in effigy. Instead, it is the people supporting our attackers who routinely hold violent demonstrations, demonstrations where the participants burn our flag while they pray for, plan for, and attempt to execute our country’s complete annihilation. Mr. Murray, it seems to me that there are many parts of the world that could do a better job controlling rage or practicing understanding. Maybe your scolding is misdirected.

As for us, sure, we can do better, and I hope we do. But the fact remains that no society has ever contributed greater good to the world than the United States of America.