The St. Bernard’s Speakers Night, organized and co-chaired by current parents Hutham Olayan and Anjali Melwani, was held on April 15, 2003. The program opened with a provocative introduction by Walter Cronkite, presenting three speakers on the question: “The War on Terror—Will Anyone Win?” Mr. Cronkite noted that, with respect to the war in Iraq, he himself was “a dissident.” He raised the question: “Does pre-emption lead us to deeper troubles around the world?” and expressed concern about our military and the fracturing of relationships with long-time allies. He said he was terribly worried about the economic consequences of the war and thinks that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will still be paying for it. He then proceeded to the topic of the night and declared himself relieved that he did not have to answer the question.

Three distinguished panelists then tackled the question of the war on terror. The first speaker was the Honorable Frank Wisner ’50, a native New Yorker who attended St. Bernard’s and is currently a member of the board of directors of American International Group. Ambassador Wisner has had a long career in public service, serving as U.S. Ambassador to India from 1994 to 1997, and attaining the rank of Career Ambassador, the highest grade in the Foreign Service.

Ambassador Wisner noted that this war differs from other wars because America is juggling a “multiplicity of engagements around the world” at one time. Ambassador Wisner dated the war on terrorism from September 11, 2001. “Since that time,” he said, “our progress on squashing terror should be duly noted. Al Qaeda has been disturbed, half the leaders have been apprehended, and yet there is much more to do.” Ambassador Wisner felt that the foe is a shifting one, with “non-linear habits,” and that in consequence we are following a foggier path than in previous conflicts. He stated his view that we are faced with a long problem and that we will have incidences of terror with us for the rest of our lives.

Unlike Mr. Cronkite, Ambassador Wisner had few criticisms of the war, a war he stated “was necessary.” He felt that Iraq was a networking territory for terror and that there were at least efforts there to develop weapons of mass destruction. “For that reason the world community had to draw the line,” he declared. Ambassador Wisner stated that there is danger in what lies ahead and that success in the war in Iraq will be judged on several principles.

The United States will be seen as having done the right thing if we have “the guts” to make a success out of Iraq, to pay the cost of making things rights there. The United States must set reasonable goals in Iraq, and whether or not it can be democratized remains to be seen. It is necessary to see, however, if the ancient communities there can find a way to share the fruits of the land. The U.S. needs to assure the Iraqis that we can feed, water, and heal them. If Iraq emerges whole, then “we have done our job.”

Mr. Shashi Tharoor is an English-born and -educated Indian, who has worked for the United Nations since 1978. His accomplishments include serving the U.N. as High Commissioner for Refugees during the “boat people” crisis, assisting in peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia, and assisting U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in the late 1990s. He is a writer, who has won numerous literary awards. One of his books was adapted for the screen as Bollywood.

Unlike Ambassador Wisner, Mr. Tharoor said he did not find a clear link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq, but he did believe it was a war on terrorism. “What 9/11 taught us,” he said, “was that new wars could be fought with technology: cell-phones, planes, and all the tools of globalization. 9/11 proved that nobody is really safe. The shock and revulsion around the world was unity in the best sense. It was the sort of unity and interdependence that is imperative to win any war on terrorism. To respond effectively, the world must be united.”

Mr. Tharoor noted that terrorism is a method, not an ideology, and that we should not mistake method for cause. He described terrorism as a method born of weakness, hitting the United States where it is most vulnerable. The way to prevent terrorists from “winning,” he said, is to deny them sanctuary. We also need the political tools to help discourage pockets of terrorists from forming. Mr. Tharoor noted that, when examining the roots of terrorism, we find fanatics. He felt we needed to understand what makes people become fanatical. He believes that terrorism offers an expression of rage at a life that offers little. If the world were to muster the same level of revulsion that it felt at the 9/11 attacks, he stated, and apply it against the causes of the other 26,000 human deaths that occurred on the same day owing to hunger and disease, then perhaps we would rid the world of some of the fodder for terrorists. Now that we all know the despair that other countries have known, we must use our strength to provide education internationally and to act on the numerous principles enshrined in the U.N. resolutions that are passed and not carried through.

The third panelist was Dr. Peter Awn, holder of a Harvard doctorate in Islamic religion, Dean of the School of General Studies, and Professor of Islamic Religion and Comparative Religion at Columbia University. Dr. Awn identified “issues which frustrate our ability to succeed on the war on terror.” One of these, he feels, is that Americans are too enamored of short-term goals. “We love immediacy, and when we get it, we move on.” As an example he cited the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. “There,” said Dr. Awn, “we never really thought through the consequences of arming to the teeth the powers fighting” against the Soviets. His hope now is that we have gotten better at accepting long-term challenges. To move to a long-term vision means learning to live with more risk and greater violence in daily life. If we as New Yorkers begin changing the way we live, if we start to retrench from urban life, refusing to take the subway, and avoiding crowded places, then in Dr. Awn’s view we are letting terrorists win.

Dr. Awn expressed the view that the U.S. sends mixed signals to its allies and that it is too dependent on intelligence services of other countries, such as Pakistan, Israel, and Egypt. America should increase the presence of the Peace Corps again, making Americans a presence internationally and giving them a better understanding of other peoples. After the Iranian revolution Persian studies became non-existent in the United States. Now we need to catch up and enhance our abilities to understand the anger of people abroad, to try and arrest the catalysts of terrorism. Dr. Awn stated that, at the moment, the number of such catalysts seems to be getting worse, not better.

“Muslims are no more religious than followers of any other religion,” Dr. Awn stated, “and most followers are terrified of the religious right in their environments. The arch-conservative religious movements increased the influence on Islam, not because people were more religious, but because it was one of the few areas open to protest. They have gotten powerful because they have offered young people a way to speak out.” Dr. Awn said he does not see this as a movement of the poor, but rather one of disenchanted, disillusioned youth, incapable of making a difference in the world. “We’re not to blame, but we are the easiest targets because our hands aren’t completely clean.” Dr. Awn believes that Americans need to learn to be “offended.” “In American culture,” he said, “we make an effort to be politically correct. We sometimes nod and accept aspects of others’ beliefs that are not good.” We should learn to critique other religions. “Americans don’t do this now because we respect free choice and sometimes fear offering our true opinions, but we should not pander to religious movements that have a goal of imposing their vision of homogeneity on the world. In other words, speak out against anti-diversity and anti-plurality. Let others know what you do not stand for.”

No. 30, Fall 2003, page 4