An Act of War

Was September 11, 2001 a direct act of war? There are some that say yes and some that say no. The reason for this disagreement is that for it to be war it has to have some sort of political agenda for the attackers. There are many proposed reasons why terrorists chose to attack the world trade centers. Some think that it was a direct retaliation to Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Others think that it was done out of jealousy, rage and anger. While still others hold another idea; that September 11, 2001 was a direct act of war against the Unites States.

Those that believe that the attacks were an "unprovoked act of war" believe that there were political reasons behind the attacks. The National Review makes the point that, "An act of violence on the magnitude of 9-11 can only have been intended to further some kind of political objective". Another expert, Victor Davis, put it this way, "it is irrelevant what grievances our enemy may believe it has against us; what matters is that we have been viciously attacked and that, for the sake of our own survival, we must fight back. When the events of September 11, 2001 are looked at from this perspective it brings to light the fact that the attacks were indeed an "act of war". The concept of "war" can be broken down into the simple concept of getting people to do what we want them to do. While no one will ever know the exact reasons for the attacks on 9-11, it can be assured that there was an objective. The only question left to be answered is; were the terrorists that committed these acts able to achieve their political objectives?