My purpose today is to honor the memory of all of the people killed in the events of last September 11, primarily the victims in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania and their families, but also the perpetrators and their families. I feel fortunate to be part of a liberal religious faith tradition that not only permits but encourages this sort of reflection, and appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you.

I’m sure we all remember exactly where we were, what we were doing, and how we came to learn of what happened on that Tuesday morning last year. I returned from rowing on the Des Moines River near my house shortly before 8:00 am to hear a report on NPR that a plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center Towers. The report was sketchy and the reporter sounded confused, but the report was soon confirmed - one of the towers had been hit and was on fire. Incredulous, I turned on the television and saw the ensuing events unfold.

I don’t need to rehash the sequence of events that we saw and heard portrayed too many times in the media that day and in succeeding days. As they played out, the events were surreal and unbelievable. This was compounded by commentators, and the nation as a whole struggling to comprehend that the United States had been attacked in a big way, something that hasn’t happened in a long time. The evening of 9/11 I went back to the river to be in “the peace of wild things” as Wendell Berry has written. I burned some sage and sent my prayers to all the peoples of the world via the four winds and the water.

I do want to reflect on the dynamics of the events and subsequent actions. I will share my own perspective, and focus on what there is for us to learn as a nation.

The carnage and subsequent clean-up were agonizing. I visited Washington, DC and New York City in early October just three weeks after September 11. I made a pilgrimage to Ground Zero on a Sunday morning. It’s hard to conceive of how large the affected area is and how far the dust and debris travelled. My friends in Brooklyn across the East River from the Trade Center had ash and even whole sheets of paper raining down in their yard following the collapse of the buildings.

I walked around the northern perimeter of the site. Police lines were manned to keep people at least two blocks away all around. By mid-morning there were lines of people walking to and from the few vantage points directly north or east of the site where you could see anything. People were generally quiet and somber. There were many memorials and displays with media clippings and photographs of missing persons.

I visited a friend from El Salvador who had worked in one of the towers for several years until just before September 11 when she was transferred to another job site. The New York Times began printing a page of photographs and stories of victims. Blanca was saving the photographs of people that she knew. She showed me a stack and told me brief stories of each as she went through them. The impact upon here was palpable. She was depressed and unable to work. She just returned to work this summer.

The impact on the New York community has been severe from the lives lost, impact upon survivors, destruction of property and infrastructure, and lost business and economic activity. Although there’s been plenty of media attention, with more this past week and next, it’s not nearly as personal for the rest of the nation.

It’s too easy for those of us with no direct connection to the victims and attack sites to return to “business as usual.” In addition to honoring the memories of the victims, and in the tradition of our first principle, let us strive for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of these events and our connections with them

First I want to reflect upon what the Bush administration and many Americans refuse to acknowledge - that there are very real reasons why our nation is resented and even hated by people in other parts of the world. And then I will present some constructive suggestions for how our nation might change its behavior to improve relations with other nations and perhaps help prevent similar acts of terrorism in the future.

{Jon Torgerson, Professor of Philosophy at Drake University, wrote a letter to the editor of the DM Register via email following the events of September 11. Jon’s letter ran on September 12. It acknowledged that there are reasons that the U.S. is resented, feared, and even hated, and that the attack was ironically symbolic. The U.S is part of the 20% of the world’s population that uses 80% of the world’s resources. Jet airliners, symbols of the developed world, were used as weapons to destroy the twin World Trade Center towers - representing the economic power of the U.S. and the multinational corporate, securities, and currency markets - and attack the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. military. Jon immediately began to receive threatening phone calls and mail.

In an opinion piece published on 12/8/01 in the DM Register, Torgerson and Cliff DuRand make a strong case that the roots of terrorism is not envy of our freedom and prosperity, but resentment of the arrogant domination we have imposed. Although they mentioned current causes, such as the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the continued bombing of Iraq, or U.S. support of Israeli right-wing actions against the Palestinians, they stress the need to look at the root causes found in U.S. policy over the last half-century.

Torgerson and DuRand write that our policy was based on the belief that our prevailing in the Cold War meant we had to put ourselves in opposition to almost every progressive movement in the world. I would add that the increasing domination of a variety of business markets by U.S. companies also led to many military actions solely to protect domestic economic interests with little regard for other nations and peoples.

Here are some examples:

• the 1953 overthrow of a reform-minded government in Iran that led to the installation of the shah ensured Western companies would control its oil production

• the 1954 overthrow of an elected progressive president in Guatemala who had threatened to nationalize United Fruit land led to wealthy oligarchies ruling for the next 40 years

• the 1961 assassination of the popular anti-colonial Congo leader Patrice Lumumba resulted in Western control of the Congo’s mineral wealth

• despite many attempts to overthrow Cuba, it is the one example of a progressive nation that has been able to survive such U.S. attacks - much to the admiration of most of the world

• in Chile, democratically elected Marxist President Salvadore Allende was overthrown and assassinated by a U.S.-backed military coup in 1973, ushering in two decades of harsh repression under the dictator Augusto Pinoche

• after the people of Nicaraugua overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza, the U.S. aided a decade-long dirty war against the new government

• for decades the U.S. supported the apartheid white minority government in South Africa against the struggles of the black majority in democracy

• In Afghanistan in the late 1970’s a reform-minded progressive government sought to modernize the culture, changing many oppressive practices against women. This brought the ire of Muslim fundamentalists. The U.S. began to aid these groups, hoping to lure the Soviet Union into aiding the Afghani government. The CIA aided the reactionary fundamentalists to the tune of $3 billion, leveraging that amount by promoting heroin as a cash crop.

The Soviet Union was defeated, Afghanistan was devastated, and the U.S. left it to the competing tribal fundamentalist terrorists it had trained, organized, equipped and financed (with the help of Saudi friends).

“Yes, the U.S. did win the Cold War, but at what a price! We dashed the hopes of many masses of the earth for liberation from oppression and exploitation. It is not the envy of our freedom and prosperity, as President Bush has said, but resentment of the arrogant domination over them that we have imposed that moves the anti-American sentiments that now haunt us. For over a half-century the U.S has inflicted violence on people in developing countries, including emerging democracies. Now they have turned the guns on us.”

“The American people are a generous and kind-hearted people who have been like the family of a Mafia boss who do not know what their father does, and don’t want to know, and then wonder why someone just threw a firebomb through the living-room window. Most Americans haven’t wanted to know, and have been told little about what our national political elite has done in our name.”

“Don’t get us wrong. The terrorist attack of 9/11 was terribly wrong, both morally and strategically. It richly deserves the appellation “evil” in its callous disregard for the suffering of others. And it was strategically wrong in that its terror brings forth a still greater terror in response as violence begets violence. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye will soon leave us all blind” - blind to what is good in the other and blind to what is evil in ourselves.

The terrorism of some of the most reactionary elements in the Islamic world has strengthened some of the most reactionary elements in our own ruling elite…. By destroying progressive forces around the world, the Cold War has left behind many reactionary ones.

And that is now threatening to extinguish what progressive elements remain in the U.S., as we are drowned out by the war hysteria being whipped up by our political elite.”}

Despite these facts, I have been deeply moved by the expressions of sympathy of people around the world following 9/11. This sympathy is from their people directly to our people, because they often have a much greater understanding of what it is to experience loss. People especially in developing countries are victimized by natural disasters, famine, and genocide, and many forms of terrorism.

There have been ceremonies, formal and informal messages, and even gifts from people and nations around the world. I was especially touched by the Masai man who brought a steer to the City of New York on behalf of the Masai people. Cattle are the most valued things in Masai culture, representing property, currency, and survival as a source of food.

Another positive outcome from this tragedy has been the opportunity for Americans to learn more about Islam. There has been very good dialogue and ample media exposure of current life in Afghanistan. My education in anthropology gives me the context to know that there has been violence in the name of religion for thousands of years. Yet the actions of the suicide pilots on 9/11 is very rare, controversial in the Islamic community, and rejected by most.

There is no denying that we have moved from the era of the Cold War characterized by the threat of nuclear war to that other kind of war, the deadly and erosive attrition that has long been played out on news reports of Israel and Palestine, of Belfast and Ulster, of San Salvador and Managua: terrorism..

For Americans, it’s now belatedly a reality. And despite strenuous efforts at intelligence and prevention, an open society like America’s has so many vulnerabilities that many experts expect another reality check to come soon, and more after that. The potential for evil, once so hard to imagine, remains unimaginably vast.

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman remarked, we had two failures of imagination-first in envisaging such evil, and then in envisaging a countervailing good. At the moment when most Americans were ready to stand up and contribute to getting off oil, constructive leadership was largely absent.

All of the pomp and circumstance of “homeland security,” and flag-waving, breast-beating displays of patriotism are somewhat misguided in my opinion. Improving security at airports, on airliners, and public transit; considering the safety and security of food and water supplies; and raising awareness of the fragility and inefficiency of American infrastructure are all worthwhile. But attempting to defend against potential threats that are unknown and unpredictable is an exercise in frustration and often a waste of resources.

We all need to think more deeply about what security really means and how it is best achieved. Rather than fumbling around in an awkward posture of defense, why not focus efforts where the U.S. can improve domestic policies that in turn set a better example for international relations. How and where can we best invest to make the U.S. and the world safer?

I want to share recent observations and recommendations for “least cost security” proposed by Amory Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, and Cameron Burns of the Rocky Mountain Institute. I will paraphrase sections of “New Thinking for a Dangerous World,” an article in the summer 2002 RMI News.

{Traditionally the locus of power and action has been governments. Today’s world is tripolar, with power and action focused not only in governments, but also in the private sector, the organizations that make up the internet-empowered civil society, and complex interactions among these three actors. In a world where change can occur very quickly and through diverse means and channels, government is increasingly the least effective part of the triad. Business and civil society, often in alliance, are rapidly taking up the slack.

Further complicating this three-part dance, each member of the triad has a sort of antiparticle: rogue governments, like the Taliban; rogue businesses, like Monsanto and Enron; and rogue nongovernmental organizations, like al Qa’eda. The old world model saw governments ruling territory inside which national economies functioned. Strong national economies rested on military might.

In a sense, globalization is not new. It began before the great sailing ships. From Alexander, Genghis Khan, and the Romans to the East India Company and the Opium Wars, national military power secured and protected access to resources and markets. What is new is the unfettered power of transnational corporations, which increasingly can influence or evade the rules of whatver country they wish to do business in. Economic decisions now pay little attention to sovereignty.

Trillions of dollars flee at the click of a few mice, leaving national economies vulnerable and in some instances, governments unable to look after their people because they cannot control their economies.

Instability is globalizing too, and exists in all three poles: weapons of mass destruction are spreading, crime and drugs are global industries, and mass culture is replacing authentic diversity. The ubiquitous reach of media has spawned a global village where all the peoples of the world want what we have, and for many of them it is impossible.

None of this is welcome to most citizens, whether French farmers being standardized by Eurocrats, fast-food chains, and agribusiness, Indian oil-seed farmers who cannot compete with multinational franchises, or workers in the World Trade Center, who became unknowing targets of a global network of terror. But each of these forms of insecurity is being encouraged or tolerated by U.S. policy’s unique talent for inspiring resentment.

Becoming a country consistently worthy of respect and affection in other's eyes - not just Americans’ - will be tough until the U.S. stops eroding or undercutting practically every peace-promoting, risk-reducing effort put forward by the international community, appearing hypocritical and unilateral, imposing tawdry mass-media culture where it's not wanted, and showing so little understanding of the values of diversity and tolerance.

The disturbing thesis of Wall Street Journal correspondent Jonathan Kwitney's Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World remains all too true today, and is getting more so.

But if we substitute the positive goal of striving for a secure world, what does that really mean? Webster's Dictionary defines two main elements of security: freedom from fear of privation and freedom from fear of attack. Both are vital to being safe and feeling safe. And each requires the other. How can we achieve them in ways that work better and cost less than present arrangements?

Freedom of Fear of Privation

Freedom of fear of privation has many obvious elements: reliable and affordable provision of energy, food, water, sanitation, shelter, health care; a sustainable and flexible system of production, transport, communication, and commerce; universal education and strong innovation; a healthful environment; vibrant diversity; free expression, debate, and spirituality; and legitimate, accountable self-government. But achieving these is not a zero-sum game in which if I win, you lose. Real security requires that we attain all these things not only for both ourselves but also for others. As Dick Bell of the Worldwatch Institute has noted, weapons and warriors cannot keep us safe “in a world of extreme inequality, injustice, and deprivation for billions of our fellow human beings.” Decent lives, anywhere, everywhere, are a worthy mission.

Today, according to the United Nations Development Programme, every poor person on earth could have clean water, sanitation, basic health, nutrition, education and reproductive health for about $40 billion per year-less than new U.S. antiterrorism spending and less than one quarter of the recent U.S. tax cut. One can quibble about the numbers and the best delivery mechanisms, but the need is undeniable.

Yet few in Washington seem to be talking about such investments in a fairer, safer world. The Bush Administration's recent increase in foreign aid could be a good thing, but it's only a small start at reordering our priorities toward what Prime Minister Tony Blair called “above all, justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed.”

Freedom from Fear of Attack

The other limb of security is freedom from fear of attack. The 1993 RMI book Security Without War (Westview Press) by Hal Harvey and Michael Shuman defines three key elements: (1) conflict avoidance/prevention, (2) conflict resolution, and (3) non-provocative defense.

Conflict avoidance/prevention (“presponse”) has historically has been given low priority but it should be the top priority. Conflict avoidance promotes and flows from justice, hope, transparency, tolerance, honest government, resource productivity, and what Harvey and Shuman call “leader control,” which exposes war-mongering leaders to the corrective displeasure of informed constituencies. Conflict avoidance/prevention can take many forms, but the most important may be advanced resource productivity. That’s the key to enabling the world’s people to have, as the South African Constitution says of water, “some, for all, for ever.” Resource productivity removes apparent contradictions between economic health and environmental health. It’s implementable by any level of government or the private sector, by market or administrative means; it can be deployed in varying scales (from the household to the globe); and it’s adaptable to diverse conditions.

If conflict avoidance/prevention fails, the next part of the security triad is conflict resolution. That’s the realm of better international laws, norms, and institutions, business practices, and movements and conventions within civil society. It’s being rapidly improved, but needs far more work.

If conflict resolution fails, the next layer of protection is nonprovocative defense-reliably defeating aggression, but without threatening others. Neutral Sweden offers a promising example: its coastal guns can’t be elevated to fire beyond Swedish coastal waters; its effective air force has only a short flying range; its military radios are incompatible with both NATO and Warsaw Pact frequencies.

In many ways, by technical and institutional design, Sweden has made itself a nation both comforting to live next to and uninviting to attack. Systematic and comprehensive design for nonprovocative defense can ultimately yield a stable mutual defensive superiority, where each side’s defense is stronger than the other side's offense, so neither wishes to attack.

Each of these three elements of Least-Cost Security enhances the others. And none precludes projection of military force by legitimate international coalitions-as the last resort, not the first.

Would not our interests in the developing world be better advanced by democratization, anticorruption, sustainable development, resource efficiency, fair trade, demand-side drug policies, pluralism, tolerance, and humility than by expeditionary forces? Had the U.S. supported Massoud against the Taliban, as he begged when the Soviets withdrew, might we have avoided the far costlier commitment of forces to Afghanistan now, and much of the terror that intervened?

True investments in development, transparency, collective tripolar security arrangements, and non-provocative defense seem a better investment of tax dollars and of precious young lives than avoidable conflict. There are times when nothing short of decisive military force will do; but there are far more instances when timely “preventive humanitarian” missions earlier could have created military “negamissions” later.

To rebuild her tarnished credibility, the United States will need to re-engage with the world community in many areas, whether non-proliferation treaties, plutonium and land-mine reduction agreements, chemical and biological warfare treaties, or leadership on climate protection. These are but a few of the many pressing issues where the United States should be setting the world example.

The foundation of a safe world is the shared and lived belief that security rests on economic justice, political freedom, respected laws, and a common defense.

Massive, economy-distorting investments in arms alone - not to mention earth-drilling nukes and outer-space military systems - divert America’s attention from true security investments that will work better and cost less.}

Here’s a simple yet powerful example from Amory Lovins -

Building real security can be as simple and as grassroots-based as a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL).

A typical CFL costs $3-12, saves four-fifths of the electricity used by an incandescent bulb, lasts 8-13 times longer, looks similar, fits the same fixtures and, over the course of its life, will save $30-80 more than it costs. In fact, it's generally cheaper to give away CFLs than it is to run fossil-fueled power plants needed to power incandescent bulbs.

One such CFL, over its life, will avoid putting in the air from a typical coal-fired power plant one ton of carbon dioxide, eight kilograms of sulfur oxides, and four kilograms of nitrogen oxides. In terms of electricity generated by oil, it saves the burning of a barrel of oil and all the attendant emissions. Or, if we're talking about a nuclear power plant, one CFL, over the course of its life, will avoid making two-fifths of a ton TNT-equivalent of plutonium plus half a curie (which is a lot) of strontium-90 and cesium-137.

If widely deployed, CFLs could by one-fifth cut the evening peak load that crashes the grid in Bombay. They could raise a North Carolina chicken grower's profits by one-fourth, and they could raise a Haitian family's disposable income by as much as one-third because so much of the sparse cash economy goes for electricity.

A widely unrecognized advantage of such ways of saving electricity is that making them takes on the order of a thousand times less capital than expanding the electricity supply. When you invest in CFLs you also get your money back about ten times faster-so it can be quickly invested again. If we do the cheapest things first, the power sector, which currently gobbles up about a quarter of global development capital, could become a net exporter of capital to fund other development needs.

Such lamps are also the key to affordable solar power that lets girls learn to read, advancing the role of women and reducing population pressure. Currently half a billion CFLs are manufactured annually; the largest maker is China. They can be bought at the local supermarket, and the average person can service it herself. Most of us would never guess such a simple thing could have such an impact globally. But clearly, if we so choose, we can make the world more prosperous, better educated, less polluted and, of course, safer through shared prosperity and justice-one light bulb at a time.}

While it’s easy to become discouraged and frustrated with U.S. government policy and international relations, we can have more influence locally. Here in Iowa we have great potential for improving the sustainability of our communities - serving the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. Sustainable practices combine economic viability, environmental quality, and social equity or quality of life.

We can improve energy efficiency; increase the amount of renewable energy produced and used in Iowa; increase production and use of renewable fuels from Iowa resources (ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass); increase production and use of fiber-based building materials, paper, and fabric; improve land use for multiple benefits; and increase local production of food for people. In addition to the economic advantages of these enterprises, they also support better management of land to reduce soil erosion, improve water and air quality, while boosting the local and regional economy, thus providing multiple benefits to society.

Personally and publicly we have all mourned the lives lost, honored the memories of the victims, and struggled to understand. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks I pray that the media will spare us the gratuitous and shallow display of images of destruction and death.

Let us instead strive to examine our connections with the rest of the world. What are the impacts of our actions as consumers and citizens? How can we foster more effective policy and more equitable use of resources?

On 9/11 I will return to the river to reflect on my connections to these issues, and send my prayers to the peoples of the world on the winds and the water. May the light of truth, compassion, and justice continue to illuminate the darkness of fear, greed, and hate.