article 22

  Fighting the Forces of Invisibility

  By Salman Rushdie
  Tuesday, October 2, 2001; Page A25

  NEW YORK -- In January 2000 I wrote in a newspaper column that "the
defining struggle of the new age would be between Terrorism and
Security," and fretted that to live by the security experts' worst-case
scenarios might be to surrender too many of our liberties to the
invisible shadow-warriors of the secret world. Democracy requires
visibility, I argued, and in the struggle between security and freedom
we must always err on the side of freedom. On Tuesday, Sept. 11,
however, the worst-case scenario came true.

  They broke our city. I'm among the newest of New Yorkers, but even
people who have never set foot in Manhattan have felt its wounds
deeply, because New York is the beating heart of the visible world,
tough-talking, spirit- dazzling, Walt Whitman's "city of orgies, walks
and joys," his "proud and passionate city -- mettlesome, mad,
extravagant city!" To this bright capital of the visible, the forces of
invisibility have dealt a dreadful blow. No need to say how dreadful;
we all saw it, are all changed by it. Now we must ensure that the wound
is not mortal, that the world of what is seen triumphs over what is
cloaked, what is perceptible only through the effects of its awful
deeds.

  In making free societies safe -- safer -- from terrorism, our civil
liberties will inevitably be compromised. But in return for freedom's
partial erosion, we have a right to expect that our cities, water,
planes and children really will be better protected than they have
been. The West's response to the Sept. 11 attacks will be judged in
large measure by whether people begin to feel safe once again in their
homes, their workplaces, their daily lives. This is the confidence we
have lost, and must regain.

  Next: the question of the counterattack. Yes, we must send our shadow-
warriors against theirs, and hope that ours prevail. But this secret
war alone cannot bring victory. We will also need a public, political
and diplomatic offensive whose aim must be the early resolution of some
of the world's thorniest problems: above all the battle between Israel
and the Palestinian people for space, dignity, recognition and
survival. Better judgment will be required on all sides in future. No
more Sudanese aspirin factories to be bombed, please. And now that wise
American heads appear to have understood that it would be wrong to bomb
the impoverished, oppressed Afghan people in retaliation for their
tyrannous masters' misdeeds, they might apply that wisdom,
retrospectively, to what was done to the impoverished, oppressed people
of Iraq. It's time to stop making enemies and start making friends.

  To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of America by
sections of the left that has been among the most unpleasant
consequences of the terrorists' attacks on the United States. "The
problem with Americans is . . . " -- "What America needs to understand
. . . " There has been a lot of sanctimonious moral relativism around
lately, usually prefaced by such phrases as these. A country which has
just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in history, a
country in a state of deep mourning and horrible grief, is being told,
heartlessly, that it is to blame for its own citizens' deaths. ("Did we
deserve this, sir?" a bewildered worker at "ground zero" asked a
visiting British journalist recently. I find the grave courtesy of that
"sir" quite astonishing.)

  Let's be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is
such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this
time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S.
government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that
individuals are responsible for their actions. Furthermore, terrorism
is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means. The
terrorist wraps himself in the world's grievances to cloak his true
motives. Whatever the killers were trying to achieve, it seems
improbable that building a better world was part of it.

  The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than
buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom
of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage,
accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism,
secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory,
sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims. (Islam is tough on suicides, who
are doomed to repeat their deaths through all eternity. However, there
needs to be a thorough examination, by Muslims everywhere, of why it is
that the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant strains. If the
West needs to understand its Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to
face up to its bin Ladens.) United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan
has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are
for but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition,
because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer.
Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade
Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um,I'm against that.
But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we
unanimously concur that all the items in the above list -- yes, even
the short skirts and dancing -- are worth dying for?

  The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his
world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in
sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he
is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places,
bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature,
generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's
resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will
be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to
live shall we defeat them.

  How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your
life. Even if you are scared.

  Salman Rushdie is a British novelist and essayist.