Dear Professor Searle,

Over the past two decades, I have developed a solid admiration for your
work in the philosophy of mind and philosophy of language.  While web
browsing recently, I came across a link to an essay on terrorism written
by you.  I eagerly opened it, hoping to find what insights a philosopher
might have on the subject in contrast to drivel that dominates so much
of the news media in this country.   


Unfortunately, I was disappointed in your six point answer to your own
question “what is an intelligent response [to terrorism] on our part?” 
I wonder if you could explain a few things so that I might be
instructed.  For example, in point 2 you claim that “there is no policy
change that will alter their [the terrorists’] determination to kill
us.”  I wonder of whom you are speaking?  There may indeed be some
fanatics out there who hate everything American and want to kill
Americans no matter what, and who are, as you say in your point 5,
members of a “death cult.”   But common sense should tell us that their
numbers cannot be great enough to constitute a real threat ­ or, if you
don’t like this appeal to “common sense,” at least our joint experience
of the aspirations, emotions, and motivations of human beings should
tell us that the passion to kill Americans no matter what policy changes
the US might make cannot be that widespread.  (Judging from my own
experience, I have not found that human beings living in the Middle East
are very much different from anyone else in these respects.)  The
fanatics become a threat when they are able to attract large numbers of
otherwise reasonable people who are angry at the United States for
reasons that are not derived from delusions and demented hatred but,
rather, from U.S policies that affect their lives and livelihoods.

And how could they attract so many thousands?  It is quite obvious to me
that terrorist actions perpetrated against Americans and American
institutions have causes, and it is equally obvious that those causes
trace directly to US foreign policies, particularly in the Middle East
where it is widely perceived ­ rightly or wrongly ­ that the US is
seeking hegemony.  I am speaking of policies that are manifested in US
support of Israel despite Israel’s 34-year occupation of Palestinian
territory and abuse of Palestinian human rights, US backed sanctions on
Iraq that have had crippling effects on health care in that country, the
stationing of US troops on Arab territory, and a series of US
interventions in the Middle East over the past five decades, e.g., in
Lebanon, Libya, and Iran.  Whether or not these policies are justified,
my reading of the situation is that it is precisely these policies that
have been the cause of widespread discontent in the Islamic world.  It
is upon this discontent that extremism is nourished.   A change of
policies ­ which some of us have been urging for years ­ would indeed
have the effect of deflating the extremist balloon.  

In your point 3, you talk about a “need to remove . . . those
governments that continue to give the terrorists a territorial base,
organization support and financial aid.”  Well, that is what the Bush
Administration has said, but I wonder how widely you are casting your
net?  Which terrorist groups are you speaking of?  The anti-American
ones?  The anti-Israeli ones?  The pro-American ones?  The pro-Israeli
ones?   Do you mean the ones that the Bush Administration regards as
enemies of the US and its allies?  If so, then there are many Middle
Eastern governments that support what they regard as national liberation
movements, even though the US and Israel classifies them as “terrorist
organizations.”  If you follow the Administration’s line, then you must
realize that you are proposing replacing a number of governments
throughout the world (e.g., Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Lebanon).  How do you propose to do that, and what do you intend to
replace these governments with?   What makes you think that any
pro-American replacement government in the region could bring about a
lasting peace as long as the perception persists that the US is
attempting to impose hegemony over the Middle East?   In fact, if the US
imposed those replacement governments, would that not only heighten the
perception that the US wants to determine the destiny of the Middle East
in accordance with its own designs, and wouldn’t that defeat any
likelihood for success vis-à-vis your point 4?  

Finally, your point 6, you talk about a “conflict that has beein going
on for over thirty years.”  I am curious about your dating.  What
conflict are your referring to?   Also, in point 6 you suggest that the
bombing of the destroyer Cole was a “terrorist” act.  I wonder about
this.  Is an attack upon a military vessel that is perceived (by the
attackers) to be a tool in the attempt to maintain or impose hegemony on
territory (regarded by the attackers as their home territory) an act of
terrorism?  What definition of “terrorism” are you using?

Professor Searle, I know you are a busy productive thinker, but if you
have some time to elaborate upon what you have said in response to my
queries, I would be most appreciative.

Cordially,

Tomis Kapitan
Philosophy Department
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
kapitan@niu.edu