GUEST OPINION: If I were a terrorist …
By: Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky
If I were a terrorist, I would be delighted by events at Princeton.
Two weeks after the greatest attack ever against U.S. civilians, the Princeton University community doesn’t seem to share the American people’s overwhelming support for a strong response against those responsible for the terrorist attacks.
Smoke was still rising from World Trade Center Plaza when McCosh Walk started to flutter with flyers announcing a peace meeting. Students exploited a discussion titled "Diverse Voices of Compassion" to denounce patriotism as "dangerous" and the United States as "racist."
A university memorial service attempted to express our grief, without once calling for a response against America’s terrorist enemies. It might have led one to forget what actually happened in lower Manhattan, or that in the face of ferocious assault, justice and prudence require the United States to summon the courage to prevail in the long struggle against terrorism.
Clearly, the 400 or so people who took part in last Friday’s peace march on Nassau Street had already forgotten.
If I were a terrorist, I would fear the sustained will of the American people much more than aircraft carriers or B-52s. Indeed, the United States’ only defeat occurred when nationwide student activism questioned the moral legitimacy of our involvement in Vietnam and weakened America’s will to fight.
Accordingly, I would see the prevailing attitude at Princeton and other Ivy League schools as one of the first cracks in American resolve. I would reason that despite the American people’s current support for firm action against terrorism, places like Princeton University concentrate a disproportionately influential minority of experts and pundits. They are the source of many of the talking heads on TV, the engines of public opinion.
If I had been a terrorist watching the peace march, I would have smiled. Students chanted about how America should "stop the cycle of violence," and insisted that any military response to the Sept. 11 attack would be further terrorism.
Let’s be clear. I treasure the Princeton Peace Network’s right to free speech. The citizens’ right to criticize their government doesn’t exist in Afghanistan, or any other country that enables terrorism. Nevertheless, I would urge student activists to consider the consequences of the messages they send.
I wish they understood the lesson of Munich, that showing weakness in the face of aggression encourages aggression. Calls for a reassessment of U.S. foreign policy in wake of Sept. 11 do nothing to prevent future terror. Cutting our support for Israel or reducing our presence in the Middle East would invite future terrorism by any group interested in influencing American behavior. A firm response to terror will ultimately be most conducive to the peace for which we all pray. To forswear a military response would also be to undermine the very diplomatic attempts to resolve the crisis that peace groups prefer.
The bottom line is that terrorists want to use fear to change our behavior. We must not let them. We must not even hint that we might do so.
That is our responsibility at Princeton.
Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, a New York City native, is a sophomore at Princeton University and co-chair of the Princeton Committee Against Terrorism.

