 |
Friday,
March 26, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Profs
express views on new 9/11 material
In
the wake of the hearings from the 9/11 commission, TCU
professors share their insights on the matter.
By
Ferrell Fields
Although
the 9/11 commission hearings have concluded, many Americans
have been left with new questions about who knew what
and whether they acted fast enough. Political experts
at TCU agree the hearings have shed new light on terrorism
and our government.
“So long as the purpose of the hearings were to discover
ways to avoid terrorism in the future, then the hearings
were useful,” said Jim Wright, former Speaker of
the U.S. House of Representatives. “If the purpose
was to only place blame on the errors of the past, it
does not do us any good.”
The findings of the hearings will more than likely not
come out conclusively but there is an understanding that
the Bush and Clinton administration, in hindsight, could
have done more or take the al Qaeda track more seriously,
said Manochehr Dorraj, a political science professor.
“I am surprised at the level of strong criticism
that has been placed on the Bush and Clinton administrations
and how critical the panel has been on both administrations,”
Ralph Carter, a political science professor, said.
The government does not change until it has to, and if
there is a policy mistake, it will inevitably force innovation
of the government, Carter said.
According to the commission, the hearings focused on counterterrorism
policy, with an emphasis on the period from the 1998 embassy
bombings to 9/11. The hearings also measured what information
senior administration officials had before 9/11 and what
decisions were made.
“I don’t believe that we have done very much
to put out the fires of prejudice and anti-American zeal.”
Wright said. “We may in fact inadvertently aided
in the recruitment of a new generation of terrorists.”
Carter said he does not know if 9/11 could have been prevented,
but it is clear that if the threat was taken more seriously,
and our resources were utilized more efficiently, it would
have been a lot harder for terrorists to carry out 9/11.
Dorraj said terrorism should not be treated merely as
a political and intelligence issue but should be underlined
by social and political issues.
“Unfortunently, terrorism thrives on fanaticism and
hate,” Wright said. “In the long run, the only
way to stamp out this mindless assertion of extreme anger
is to create a better understanding throughout the world
and improve relations with people of other customs and
religious belief.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
