The 21st Century 
Announces Itself

   Letters at 3AM


   September 21, 2001:

   "New York, the capital of the 20th century" -- so Norman Mailer once described his city.
   The proof is in the architecture. In the 1930s there was no skyline like New York's. By the
   1990s the New York skyline, and the way of life that goes with it, was mirrored by every
   major city in the world. The Manhattan-style skyscraper became the most visible global
   symbol of economic and political power, and New York became the nerve center of
   humanity's commerce. On September 11, two great buildings of the world's economy,
   New York's tallest, 110 stories high ... we watched them collapse, dissolve, in mere
   seconds. The intended symbolism could not be more clear: What was strong in the 20th
   century is fragile in the 21st; what seemed invulnerable is vulnerable; the very things that
   were designed by our strength, and for our convenience, can be transformed into the
   implements of our destruction. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- the 21st
   century has announced its terms by successfully assaulting two prime symbols of the
   20th. Daily American life, from now on, will require a far greater capacity to endure
   uncertainty and fear. We don't yet know if the American dream, with its cocky mix of
   audacity and naiveté, can remain viable amidst the forces of chaotic instability that seem
   to be the 21st century's signature.

   Granted that the World Trade Center, as architecture, expressed the buildings' functions
   all too well -- those monolithic rectangles were crude, massive, unimaginative
   expressions of raw selfish power. But those buildings were inhabited by individuals who,
   like most people, were trying to resolve the contradictions of their dreams within the
   humble, difficult, never-finished task of earning one's keep and doing one's best. How
   much love, and effort, and laughter, and hate, and regret, and bravery, and longing, and
   cowardice, and certainty, and dullness, and ambivalence, and sweetness, and greed,
   and illusion, and generosity, and truth, and memory, above all, their private special
   memories ... how very much died with each one of those people that day.

   And the deluded cruelty of the terrorists -- that too is part of us. For it is also human to
   believe passionately and mercilessly; to sacrifice oneself for an ideal, and to blind
   oneself to the grotesque results; more than anything, it is horribly human to fail to see the
   Other as equally valid, equally human. And how much delusion and cruelty will these
   terrorists, in turn, generate? On the night of September 11, even a man I value very
   highly spoke in the most extreme terms of annihilating Islam. Horror begets horror. For it
   is also human, in times of crisis, to allow the lowest and ugliest to set the terms. So
   Hitler set the terms by which America justified the atomic incineration of a quarter-million
   civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No nation that committed such atrocity can claim a
   moral high ground on terrorists. Which cannot excuse anyone's terrorism against our
   innocents. None of it is justified. And that is human too: to become so intoxicated with
   the unjustifiable that our very intoxication becomes our justification. How terrible can be
   the allure of the unspeakable, and how human it is to surrender to that allure.

   It remains to be seen, as I write, what America will do. A military response is essential,
   but it brings to bear an ancient question: How can justice be balanced by mercy? If we
   fail in justice, we cannot survive. If we fail in mercy, it won't matter whether we survive.
   As was said by the prophet whom we name as the fount of our civilization: "What does it
   get you, if you gain the whole world but lose your soul?" So America is about to be
   tested, and to test itself, by the form and extent of the unquestionably necessary violence
   to which we must resort. What America does now will set the tone and pace for the
   history of the next 50 years.

   In Stephen Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching, the 31st passage reads:
   "Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst
   necessity, and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint. Peace is his
   highest value. If the peace has been shattered, how can he be content? His enemies are
   not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor
   does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of
   men? He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and great compassion, as if he were
   attending a funeral." And yet fury also is necessary or you cannot win. Such a paradox
   used to be called "the human condition." We are learning again that all our sciences, all
   our achievements, have not and will not free us from the condition that we are
   contradictory beings who cannot satisfy one need without denying or giving short shrift to
   another and equally essential need.

   Is a national response within the Tao Te Ching's terms possible? Of course. Acting
   with great audacity and compassion during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy
   administration faced the gravest threat and prevailed with virtually no violence -- though
   they were ready for the greatest extreme of violence if their gambit failed.

   Is such a national response likely now? As the firefighters and police of New York City
   proved, rising nobly to the occasion is also one of the great human possibilities, and we
   cannot prejudge that possibility for any leader, especially our own. But no action will
   solve for very long the dilemma we find ourselves in. It would be delusional to think
   there's some ultimate solution. No matter what we do, the 21st century has announced
   itself in the starkest conceivable terms by how quickly, on September 11, we accepted
   this fact:

   We know we're at war, but we don't know precisely with whom.

   That's the 21st century.

   But even though we identify the perpetrators and supporters of these gruesome acts,
   and even if we destroy them, our satisfaction will be temporary. It is one thing to war
   against a nation, for you can defeat a nation; it is quite another to war against a
   subculture, a movement that spans many nations and cannot be ultimately confined or
   pinned down -- a movement that uses the very instruments we've invented and depend
   upon: weapons, communications, financial arrangements, and tactics concocted by the
   ingenuity of the West. The biological, chemical, and atomic devices that we fear most in
   the hands of others -- they are our creations. And the fact that others can wield them is
   the result of our greed, arrogance, and shortsightedness. This does not in any way
   mitigate the moral culpability of our adversaries; but it is a fact as a much as a metaphor
   that they threaten us with the devices of our own paranoia and ambition. And that, too, is
   the 21st century.

   Whether it is global warming or terrorism on the monstrous scale of the World Trade
   Center, the fundamental dynamic of the 21st century has announced and revealed itself:
   The underlying enemy of the Western nations will be the chaotic unleashing of the very
   forces that the West so proudly and hopefully created. Insofar as those forces were the
   expression of our selves, we will be fighting ourselves. For our adversaries, on their own,
   have invented nothing that could touch us. If we are wounded again (and we almost
   surely will be); if we are somehow defeated (and even that is a possibility) -- it will be by
   the tools we created and the forces we unleashed.

   That, above all, is the 21st century.

   At present, most of humanity lives in poverty and ignorance, under the constant threat of
   violence. Roughly three out of five children receive no education at all; these kids have
   no way of investigating propaganda, and are easily molded. We will not be safe until they
   are. Until they've achieved a modicum of security, education, and prosperity, they'll have
   every reason (emotionally if not logically) to hate us, and no reason not to attack us. We
   are learning the terror of fighting an adversary who has nothing to lose. Until they have
   more to lose than their lives, they're not going to quit. Which is why the satisfactions of
   retaliation will be fleeting -- however necessary retaliation, at the moment, certainly is.
   Killing one of their leaders and a thousand of his followers won't change the basic
   equation. Nothing can ultimately "win" but a foreign policy that has as its ultimate goal the
   well-being of the disenfranchised. Until that is achieved, it is only human for the wretched
   of the earth to take satisfaction in making our lives equally wretched -- and we've given
   them the tools to do so.

   Fear and rage are natural but beside the point -- for acting out of fear and rage will only
   increase the chaos. What is necessary is vision, compassion, and courage. Nothing
   else can meet and tame the dragon-like energies of the 21st century.

   Is this the first event of World War Three, a war unlike any before, to be fought in ways
   unlike any before? It may be. As I write I feel like I'm whispering, because in such a time
   all words that are not shouted feel like whispers -- small breaths of sound spoken in the
   dark, their meanings tentative and incomplete. It is very late, it may be too late, but still I
   propose a toast and raise my glass:

   To the compassionate and brave.
Return to "9-11" Menu