From the beginning of the war against terrorism, some have expressed concern that we do not overstep the bounds and lose the "moral high ground." First there was concern that our bombing of targets in Afghanistan would result in unwarranted destruction of what infrastructure that country has left. Then photos of our treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray have provoked outrage in Europe and in many other places around the world. Now it appears that our troops may have killed a number of "friendly" Afghans in an attack north of Kandahar last month and abused others after they were captured.
| |  |
| | | Joshua Searle-White is an assistant professor of psychology at Allegheny College. He recently published "The Psychology of Nationalism," which identifies the psychological factors that fuel nationalist conflicts. | |
| | |
We are in danger of losing the moral high ground, some say; if we are not careful, other nations will wonder whether or not they should continue to support us in our war against terror as it moves from Afghanistan to its next staging ground.
It may well be true that we are losing the moral high ground. But before we become too concerned with losing it, we might want to think about how we got it in the first place.
We did not attain this position of moral superiority because of any inherent quality we have as Americans. Nor did we achieve it through altruistic actions towards our fellow nations. We attained the moral high ground by being victimized, pure and simple. When the terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of civilians and damaging powerful symbols of our nation, they made us victims. In doing so, they gave us the moral authority to strike back, to seek justice and even to seek revenge. And with that moral authority in hand, we set out to track down the terrorists and capture or kill them.
And, with the support of many in the international community, we have succeeded in Afghanistan, at least partially. But in the long term, our strategy of garnering support through occupying the moral high ground is doomed to failure. Our status as victims cannot last forever. Eventually, the accidental civilian casualties that we inflict, our skirting of international principles in dealing with prisoners, or the deals we make with unsavory people to achieve our ends will cause many in the world to look at us as aggressors, not victims.
When that time comes -- and it will -- our moral authority will be spent. We will then have only two options. We can continue our war without broad support, with only our staunchest allies by our side (and perhaps even without them). Or we can wait for further atrocities to be committed against us, which will re-institute our sense of victimhood and our moral authority and get us back on the moral high ground.
Obviously, neither of these outcomes is desirable. The first makes our war against terrorism much less effective because we will be working without the support that we currently enjoy, and perhaps even at cross-purposes with nations whom we would rather befriend. The second puts us in the uncomfortable situation of benefiting from harm done to our citizens and, perversely, puts our fate even more in the terrorists' hands. We need an alternate strategy, one that will last over the long term and not lose its power as our victimization fades in memory.
Instead of trying to stake our claim on the ever-shifting moral high ground, we should plant our feet on the moral low ground of pure and simple self-interest.
We should simply say to the world that we are waging war against terrorism -- not because terrorists are evil, we are morally superior or justice must be served -- but because we want to maintain our current way of life.
Terrorist attacks disrupt our safety, our economy, and the lives of our citizens, and because we want to protect all that, we will fight against terrorism as forcefully as we can. When we describe our position in these honest and unambiguous terms, we can then invite other nations to join with us on the basis of our common interest in maintaining the status quo. They will join us on that basis, as indeed, many already have.
Our approach to the terrorists themselves should be similar. We would treat the terrorists not as evildoers or savages, but as hostile competitors. We should tell them that we are going to continue to oppose them in every possible way, and if they have grievances against us, they should either come and negotiate with us about them or bring them forward through internationally accepted channels. There is no morality or justice involved. We're all just in it for ourselves and our people. If they want to achieve something for their people, they'll have to meet us on those terms.
This strategy does not depend on a moral authority that can evaporate with the next accidental civilian deaths. It also is less likely to embroil us in an escalating cycle of victimization and revenge such as the one that is engulfing the Middle East. Cloaking our war in the garb of a fight against evil is also the tactic that the terrorists themselves have chosen, and the less we are like them, the better.
Claiming that we are working for our own interests may not fire up our citizens the way rhetoric about titanic struggles about morality can. But in the long run, it is much more likely to be effective.
If we strip our rhetoric about this conflict of its overtones of righteous indignation and victimization, purity and evil, we are left with a much more realistic approach to battling terrorism as well as the discontent that feeds it.
Taking the moral low ground is a much more honest -- and in the long run, a much more productive -- way to win our war against terrorism.
E-mail this story 
