Simplistic and mischievous
What Chee failed to understand is that fighting back is not the first and only recourse. Rather, it is done only after all other peaceful means, short of violence, have been explored and exhausted.
That this should escape Chee is indicative of a different perspective at work. One that, consciously or subconsciously, adopts an eye-for-an-eye approach. His view of a pacifist, thus, does not or cannot envision an approach that tries the non-violent way first.
Many opposed to the military retaliation by the George W Bush-Tony Blair administrations have asked that the root cause of the terrorist attacks be examined first. But, instead, the immediate response has been to strike back. An eye-for-an-eye mentality.
Don't get me wrong. I, together with many who oppose this mentality of immediate military retaliation, am not saying the terrorist attacks on the United States were acceptable. Not at all. I want to make this clear in the hope of clearing up that belief that some still stubbornly cling to due to their own particular perspective.
This applies to Chee as well when he asked: "Would you sit idly by when someone comes into your home with a stick and start beating your child?" But is there only one way to respond - by violent retaliation? Is there really no time to ask that person why?
What is mischievous is the attempt to use that as an analogy to the Bush administration responding in kind to the terrorist attacks. Why? Because there is the assumption that, like the child, the US was innocent, just minding its own business and harmless, if not, helpful to others before it was attacked - a view that certainly many ordinary Americans share.
But is it? Maybe. Maybe not. That is exactly why there is the call for the US to re-examine its foreign policy. As it is, I have not seen any priority given by the Bush administration to that.
