Terrorism cuts across the East and the West
By Kazem Alamdari
February 26, 2003
This article takes issue with Professor Bernard Lewis over some of the theses
discussed in his recently published book What
Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East (Oxford University Press, 2002). This book, at first
glance, appears to be addressing the question of what preconditions gave rise to
the political, ideological and violent struggles between Arabs, Muslims and finally
the fundamentalist Muslim terrorists of today, and the West. Lewis ultimately wants
to answer the question of why the West is so hated by Muslims.
Those who are familiar with Bernard Lewis know that he is of the same ideological
and methodological school of thought as Samuel Huntington, the author of the famous
mega-historical book, The
Clash of Civilizations.1 Both these renowned scholars are considered to be
voices of conservative political thought in the West. They cite the difference between
Islam and Christianity as the root cause of the problems that we are facing today.
According to Huntington, the possibility of dangerous clashes between East and
West rests on the reality of the fundamental differences that exist between two civilisations-'The
West and the rest-and more specifically 'between Muslim and Asian societies on the
one hand, and the West on the other'.2
The publication of What Went Wrong is a study of those historic preconditions
that Lewis believes led to Muslim hatred and resentment of the West, which in turn
led, eventually, to the terrorist attacks of 11 September.
Lewis's thinking on this subject, like Huntington's, is based on the notion of
the difference and the clash that exists between the two religions of Islam and Christianity.
In fact it seems that these two illustrious thinkers see all cause of conflict in
the world, or at least between East and West, as coming from this difference. Well
then, one might ask, if a clash of religions is the cause of all conflicts, how do
we account for all the bloodshed and the wars of the twentieth century, and throughout
history, which had nothing to do with religious differences?
Below I will come back to this point and delineate and cite as evidence many nonreligious
struggles that have caused much loss and violence and resentment in this world.
Two historiographic phenomena
In his book Bernard Lewis tries to connect two historic occurrences that do not
have any direct relation to one another in order to further his politically motivated
argument. The first is: why did the Islamic world, once at the forefront of the sciences
and philosophy and with its military prowess, not manage to keep pace with the progress
of the West? Why is the Islamic world behind the West in all these aspects today?
The second historiographic question Lewis asks is, what are the roots of the violent
anger of Muslims towards the West as expressed through the actions of terrorist and
radical groups? He incorrectly sees the root causes for both these historical realities
He writes of the advances of the Islamic civilisation as follows:
For centuries the world view and self-view of Muslims seemed well grounded. Islam
represented the greatest military power on Earth-its armies, at the very same time,
were invading Europe and Africa, India and China. It was the foremost economic power
in the world ... It had achieved the highest level so far in human history in the
arts and sciences of civilization.3
Bernard Lewis adds that the loss of such a great civilisation has made the Muslims
humiliated and resentful. 'The twentieth century, particularly the second half, brought
further humiliations-the awareness that they were no longer even the first among
the followers, but were falling ever further back in the lengthening line of eager
and more successful Westernizers, notably in East Asia.'4 Their blindness to the
real reasons behind their falling behind the West leads them to blame it. Because
the world of Islam is looking for a scapegoat it needs to place the blame on the
developed and Christian world. It is because of this deep and wrongly placed resentment
that the West is now under attack by the Islamic terrorists and radicals.
Based on this wrong hypothesis Lewis criticises Muslims and writes:
If the people of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bombers
may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward
spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, culminating
sooner or later in yet another alien domination; perhaps from a new Europe reverting
to old ways, perhaps from a resurgent Russia, perhaps from some new, expanding superpower
in the East. If they can abandon grievance and victimhood, settle their differences,
and join their talents, energies, and resources in a common creative endeavor, then
they can once again make the Middle East, in modern times as it was in antiquity
and in the Middle Ages, a major center of civilization. For the time being, the choice
is their own.5
Who is Lewis blaming here? Terrorist groups or millions of ordinary people who
live in the Middle East? These kinds of criticisms and 'recommendations' not only
omit the colonial role that the West played in the history of the region, and its
current responsibility in the crisis of the Middle East, but also actually condone
The causes of the backwardness of Muslim societies and the advancement of the
Bernard Lewis sees the reason behind the relative underdevelopment of the Muslim
world in two blatant differences that exist between Christianity and Islam. The first
is an absence of an indigenous secularism in Islam, and its wholesale rejection of
the imported secularism, which he identifies as uniquely Christian.6 The second is
the inherent sexism in Islam.7 Bernard Lewis recognises the lower social status of
women as probably the most fundamental difference between the two Islamic and Christian
We will now try to explain Lewis's ideas about the differences between Islam and
Christianity in these areas.
If the backwardness of Islamic nations is the result of a lack of secularism and
their religion's inherent sexism, then what explains the backwardness of non-Muslim
countries in South America, China, India, large sections of Africa and the Far East?
If Christianity were the moving force behind Western civilisation, to what can we
attribute Japan's advancements, considering its blatant sexism and cultural bias
Let us consider Max Weber's theory of capitalism, the main authority recognizing
Christianity's fundamental role in the rise of capitalism. Despite many wrong interpretations
of Weber's theories, he himself, admonishing those who considered religion as the
main force behind capitalism, considered Protestantism as simply a cultural backdrop
for capitalism.9 Capitalist culture sprang from pre-existing socioeconomic relationships.
In some of his later writings, he found features unique to the West as a causal
chain of characteristics of rational capitalism, including the entrepreneurial organisation
of capital, rational technology, free labour, unrestricted markets, and calculative
law.10 As Anthony Giddens emphasises, 'of course, religious beliefs are only one
among various sets of influences which may conditions the formation of an economic
ethic, and religion itself is heavily influenced by other social, political and economic
Secularism, meaning the division between church, as a religious institution, and
state as an institution of political power, was a result of capitalist advancements,
and not vice versa. The separation of the King and the Pope in mediaeval Europe was
not the same as the separation of state and the Church established during modern
times.12 What explains Japan's success in adopting capitalism among many other Eastern
nations is the existence of a feudal system similar to what existed in Europe and
which gave rise to the economic foundations of private capital as opposed to governmental
ownership in other countries.
Bernard Lewis does not explain the rise and fall of Islamic civilisation; he also
fails to illuminate how Western civilisation, with the Roman and Greek cultures in
leading positions in earlier times, was left behind the Muslim world in later centuries.
How did Christian secularism fail to play its role at this time? What explains the
sudden jump in Western civilisation after 10 centuries of backwardness? And if, as
Lewis mentions, it was Islam that created what he calls advanced culture during the
Middle Ages, how did it fail to ensure its dominant position? If Christianity gave
rise to Western culture, what explains the Roman and Greek cultural dominance prior
to the emergence of Christianity, and what caused the West's relative cultural demise
later during the Middle Ages?
It is my belief that it was not Christianity that caused the West's advancements,
and nor was it Islam that caused the backwardness of the East. It was in fact capitalism
that was the main force behind modern advancements in the West, and that in turn
came about through the evolution of feudal relations. While in the East governmental
ownership prevailed, in the West private ownership was dominant; it was the creation
of a system based on private ownership that gave the West the edge.
Lewis has overlooked the multiple factors involved in both Western development
and Eastern backwardness. Unlike him, Huntington, for instance, identifies these
multiple factors 'as the core of Western civilization'. He includes the following:
classical legacy, Catholicism and Protestantism, European languages, separation of
spiritual and temporal authority, rule of law, social pluralism, representative bodies,
Bernard Lewis considers 'the status of women' as 'probably the most profound single
difference between the two civilizations'.14 He attempts to attribute the Middle
East's backwardness on the one hand and the West's advancements on the other to the
treatment and perception of women. But there is no rational or scientific foundation
in making such a connection. Lewis's understanding of the differences between Christianity
and Islam in the area of gender relations is simplistic and based on a few interpretations
made either by Western diplomats in Islamic nations in relation to women, or by observations
made of Turkish diplomats in Europe. These rather lopsided sources have led him to
conclude that women have been better treated in the West.
Sexism exists in all religions. The difference in Christianity's and Islam's views
and treatment of women is not one of principle but one of degree and tone. These
differences arise from the value systems of the society or societies in which a given
religion has developed. All religious dogmas explain gender differences in terms
of unbending biblical or celestial wisdom.
As societies change, the dominant religions change too. Did not the Catholic Church
persecute and sometimes punish by death those whose scientific opinions it found
contradictory to its dogmas? Is this so today? Did not the Catholic and Protestant
Churches, in Europe and America, accuse women of witchcraft, or of being possessed,
of creating all societal ills? Did it not persecute them, and burn them at the stake?
Do they do that today?
Is it not that in Western societies women were granted full citizenship rights
in the form of universal suffrage only after many years of women's struggle and only
at the beginning of the twentieth century? Is it not true that, even today, women
are not allowed to reach the higher echelons of leadership in most Christian churches?
Tens of other observations prove beyond doubt that, like Islam, Christianity is also
sexist, and has changed only under societal pressure. As society progressed, polygamy
was banned, and not vice versa. Rights are gained by struggle and seldom granted
Bernard Lewis's mention of polygamy in Islam is true, but its relation to societal
norms is unclear. His rationale, based on the lack of participation of women in the
economic milieu of the Islamic world, is completely baseless and unscientific. Women
have participated in all modes of economy in Islamic countries. Besides, unlike in
Christianity, women in Islam have had the right of private ownership, the fundamental
element of citizenship in the West.
Again, one could ask how, if polygamy and sexism are the main reasons for Muslims'
backward status, one can explain their dominance during the Middle Ages? Didn't oppression
of women and their subordinate social status and legal rights exist then? The phenomenon
of polygamy existed in Japan and China and their cultures too had similarly oppressive
attitudes towards women. But during the Middle Ages China too was superior to the
West in many aspects, while the lack of polygamy in the West did not create a condition
for cultural growth during this time, nor is it the case in Latin America today.
So Lewis's opinion that sexism in Islam, after the absence of secularism, is the
main contributing factor to backwardness is simply incorrect.
The evolution of the condition of women and their assertion of their rights in
all societies, including the West, have had a long historical passage and culminated
during the twentieth century. The original sparks came with the creation of liberalism
in the West and ironically religion has always opposed it. The major contributions
to women's rights came during the twentieth century but even after the second world
war religious institutions in the West, as in the Muslim world, have opposed women's
rights movements. Even today the Church has its ways of justifying the inequality
between the sexes.
During the International Women's conference, held in Beijing in 1995, Islamic
nations, in unity and co-operation with the Catholic Church, blocked certain laws
preventing women's equal rights from being passing.15 The Christian-Muslim alliance
opposing equal rights for women became further evident in a recent UN meeting. Colum
Lynch reports: 'The alliance of conservative Islamic states and Christian organizations
has placed the Bush administration in the awkward position of siding with some of
its most reviled adversaries-including Iraq and Iran-in a cultural skirmish against
its closest European allies, which broadly support expanding sexual and political
The other point Bernard Lewis makes is that the disbarring of half the population
(women) from participating in the economy of Islamic countries thanks to sexism is
a further contributing factor to their backwardness. As pointed out before, women's
role in Islamic counties in contributing to development has not been less significant
than that of men. The only exceptions are the city-dwelling middle-class women, who
are a small percentage of the total population.
Women's role both in town and country, in agriculture and farm and hearth, in
bearing and rearing the usual many children, has been stronger and more significant
than men's. The determining gulf between men and women in the East (and the West)
has not been in their contribution to society and the economy, but in the lack of
recognition of women's work and the unfair distribution of the wealth generated.
This is not an Eastern or Islamic phenomenon but a world-wide, universal inequality.
The disparity between the basic rights of men and women is still a problem in Western
societies. In the USA, for example, for each dollar a man makes a woman earns only
71 cents, or almost 30 cents less.17
In an attempt to explain the differences between the East and West, Lewis writes:
'The difference in the position of women was indeed one of the most striking contrasts
between Christian and Muslim practice'.18 He reaffirms this view as he concludes:
'the main culprit is Muslim sexism, and the relegation of women to an inferior position
in society, thus depriving the Islamic world of the talents and energies of half
its people, and entrusting the crucial early years of upbringing of the other half
to illiterate and downtrodden mothers. The products of such an education, it was
said, are likely to grow up either arrogant or submissive, and unfit for a free,
Consciously or not, Lewis has misplaced the distinction between the dictatorial
and repressive policies of some governments with the prevailing sexism in those societies.
He would have been better off deferring to Everett Hagen's 'Innovative Personality',20
which explains the main problem not as a lack of creative contribution on the part
of women, but on the part of the whole of society-men and women. Have the men of
these societies enjoyed an environment for creative growth?
Middle Eastern, or as a whole, Eastern countries, more than being a victim of
their sexism, suffer in the hands of dictatorial regimes that Western countries have
contributed to preserving throughout modern history. Lewis's view is therefore skewed.
Instead of recognising a backward society as a backdrop to a backward religion, he
has taken the opposite view. Does he not recognise that religion is a part of society,
and not the opposite?
Bernard Lewis's flawed interpretation
Bernard Lewis writes: 'The struggle for Palestine greatly facilitated the acceptance
of the anti-Semitic interpretation of history, and led some to blame evil in the
Middle East and indeed in the world on secret Jewish plots.'21
Is this really true? For almost four centuries the Middle East has been in a backward
position yet it has never reacted violently to the West. Also, as Lewis reiterates
himself, Jews 'were better off under Muslim than under Christian rule, until the
rise and spread of Western tolerance in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries'.22
Terrorist acts committed by 'Islamic fundamentalist' groups are an entirely new
phenomenon and related to the past few decades; they have no relation to differences
between East and West that have clearly existed for the previous four centuries.
Moreover, the population of these terrorist organisations constitutes no more than
one ten-thousandth of the 1.2 billion populations of the Islamic nations. How can
one convert that to include all Muslims and the backwardness of the East as a whole?
In reality, what Lewis is doing is using some shortsighted theories and views
that exist in these societies, theories that engage in a sort of 'blame game', pointing
the finger at outsiders for their own backward status alone. He tries to extend this
attitude and give it undue prominence as the main cause of the whole problem. He
attempts to draw a parallel between the way that Iranians blame Arabs, Mongols and
Turks, and ultimately the West and imperialism for their backwardness, and the way
that Arabs blame Jews and the USA for theirs.
He writes: 'For the governments, at once oppressive and ineffectual, that rule
much of the Middle East, this game serves a useful, indeed an essential purpose-to
explain the poverty that they have failed to alleviate and to justify the tyranny
that they intensified. In this way they seek to deflect the mounting anger of their
unhappy subjects against other, outer targets.'23
He adds that some Middle Easterners, after asking, 'who did this [backwardness]
to us?',24 resort to imaginative hysteria and conspiracy theories, and then blame
the Christian West, or 'Western imperialism'.25 Using the phrase 'Western Christianity',
Lewis is making a conscious effort to persuade us that the main difference is the
one that exists between Christians and Muslims. But that is not the case. It is not
just Muslims who are left behind the West. Almost the whole of the East, and large
portions of Latin America and Africa are experiencing similar backward conditions
of industry and technology and suffer from poor economies.
Muslims now number some 1.2 billion people. Considering that more than 75% of
the world population suffers from poor living conditions, almost three billion people
who suffer from these ailments are therefore non-Muslims.
The wars of the past few decades have either been non-or
intra-religious. For example, thousands of citizens of Latin American nations during
the 1970s and 1980s fell victim to either government or opposition groups' terrorism.
Almost none of this had anything to do with religious differences and contradictions,
and none involved Muslim versus Christian adversaries. These bloody confrontations,
which have resulted in hundreds or thousands of times more deaths than those caused
by Middle Eastern terror organisations are the result of a struggle between the haves
and the have nots.
Bernard Lewis has not explained these numerous historical facts, all of which
clearly point to the role of economic, political and social forces. Two world wars
have taken place in the twentieth century. When was the cultural struggle between
Muslims and Christians at the centre of any of this bloodshed? Even during the crusades,
religions were used as a tool to incite the people to fight wars that at their core
were about economic and territorial ambitions.
The seeds of modernism and violence in Islam
In the modern era the first steps for creating Islamic groups were taken in the
latter part of the 19th century, when there was a desire to recreate a powerful Islamic
Caliphate. Following the failure of this, the groups settled for establishing Islamic
governments and regimes. This period started with the thoughts and actions of Jamal
al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. Islamic movements, from the beginning, were
not anti-West, and they are not so now. As a response to the West, three alternatives-Kamalism,
Reformism and Rejectionism-grew up in Muslim societies.
While Kamalism was to modernise and Westernise Turkey, the 'reformers
attempted a new reconciliation of Islam and modernity',26 or to modernise Islam without
Westernisation. 'For Rejectionism both modernization and Westernization are undesirable
and it is possible to reject both.'27 Rejectionism originated as a result of occupation
and repression, for example in anti-colonialist movements in India and Egypt, and
has gained strength because of the Palestine crisis in recent decades.
Terrorist organisations grew up out of this alternative. They are not the representatives
of Islamic societies, or even of a considerable portion of them, but a minute minority
that receive disproportionate publicity, ironically because of their violent tactics.
They represent nostalgia for the past (pre-modern civilisation) against modern civilisation.
Much more than being against the West, Muslims are interested in re-establishing
an Islamic unity and incorporating Western technology and science into Islam.
As Enayat observes, 'the stresses and frustrations caused by the war, and the
Arab defeat of 1948, incited the activities to fresh violence inside Egypt'.28 With
Jamal Abdul Nasser's rise to political power in Egypt, the opposition to Israel found
a new dimension.
The Muslim Brotherhood at first helped and supported him but, after they tried
to create an Islamic government and failed in an attempt on his life in October 1954,
Nasser ordered their demise and executed some of their leaders.29 As the antagonism
between Arabs and Israel expanded, and following the six-day war of 1967, the Muslim
Brotherhood found new freedom to use the condition of this defeat to raise the Islamic
flag in opposition to Israel and other opponents.
'The more the West and Israel appeared to be aggressive
the more strongly the Brothers felt confident to fall back on the neglected Islamic
heritage and delineate the state that should be grounded on it.'30 To the point that
'some of the Azharites (related to the Al Azhar news paper) interpreted the
Arab-Israeli conflict in terms of a conflict between Islam and Judaism.31 Even though
the Muslim Brotherhood were never able to establish an Islamic government anywhere,
their ideological counterparts did this successfully in Iran. While the late Shah
talked from the both sides of his mouth regarding the issue of Israel, he did in
fact recognise it as a sovereign nation. This action increased Muslim opposition
The success of Islamists in Iran and the establishment of the first Islamic government
opened the way to an extended Islamic fundamentalist movement interested in terrorism.
This widened the gap between the West and some Islamic nations. Yet the establishment
of the first Islamic government did not cause a rift between Muslims and Christians,
as Lewis contends, but bloody wars among Muslims.
The eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, the breaking off of diplomatic relations
between Iran and many Muslim countries of the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
and Egypt, a cooling of relations between Iran and Turkey, Azerbaijan and some of
the Muslim countries of the Central Asian region, and finally the war between Iraq
and Kuwait and the unity of all Muslim countries and their solidarity with the West
in opposing Iraq have demonstrated that the opinions of Samuel Huntington and Bernard
Lewis lack a strong foundation.
One could add to these the unity between the West
and Bosnian Muslims in opposing Christian Serbs. Further, the 10-year struggle inside
Afghanistan, with 1.5 million casualties, and in Algeria, with 80 000, were not a
war between Muslims and Christians, but a struggle of Muslims among themselves. And
Afghan battles with Russian troops were not a war against Christians, but against
aggressors. During the Iran-Iraq war (both Muslim countries) the US government assisted
the Iraqis against Iran. Shibley Telhami writes: 'As for terrorism against American
targets, as defined by the State Department, the Middle East consistently accounted
for less than 7% of all global attacks aimed at American targets, reaching a low
of less than 2% in the year 2000.'32
Views such as those of Lewis and Huntington, which solidify the international
rift between Muslim and Christian nations have resulted in conditions in which opportunistic
individuals have tried to re-ignite the Christian hatred against Muslims. For example,
conservative columnist Ann Coulter, writing after the bloody 11 September disaster,
says: 'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers.
We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war.
And this is war.'33 People such as Fred Ikle, strategist and former undersecretary
of defence, misinterpret the nature of terrorist groups and wrongly blame the Muslim
community, threatening their holy sites with nuclear bombs. He writes, "Those
who out of cowardice use their wealth to pay danegeld to the preachers of hate and
destruction must be taught that this aggression will boomerang. A nuclear war stirred
up against "infidels" might end up displacing Mecca and Medina with two
large radioactive craters.'34
These people have forgotten that, without Iraq having
ever killed a single American soldier, the US military killed over 100 000 Iraqis
but defended other Muslim countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Sheikhdoms,
Egypt and Turkey. This too, then, was not a war between religions, but over economic
goals and political power, just as the war between terrorism and the rest is not
a religious war. For the sake of humanity, world civilisation and the rights of millions
of ordinary Muslims who have nothing to do with this conflict and terrorism, this
hostility must be consciously avoided.
From Third World Quarterly (Vol 24, No 1, 2003) under the title "Terrorism
cuts across the East and the West: deconstructing Lewis's Orientalism". This
article was originally published in Persian. The author's special thanks go to Setareh
Sabety for her instrumental assistance in translation of this article into English.
Kazem Alamdari is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at California State University
in Los Angeles.Dr Alamdari received his PhD from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
He has taught at several institutions, including University of Tehran, and University
of California, Los Angeles. More information here.
1 - The theory of The Clash of Civilizations was articulated first
by Bernard Lewis in his article The Roots of Muslim Rage: why so many Muslims deeply
resent the West and why their bitterness will not be easily modified', Atlantic
Monthly, 266, September 1990. For Bernard Lewis's view on Orientalism see his
book Islam and the West, Oxford University Press, 1993, chapter 6.
2 - Samuel P Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order, New York: Touchtone, 1997, p 183.
3 - Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?, p 6.
4 - Ibid, p 152.
5 - Ibid, p 159.
6 - Ibid, p 100.
7 - Ibid, p 157.
8 - Ibid, p 67.
9 - Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism,
Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing, 1995, pp 91-92.
10 - Randall Collins, 'Weber's last theory of capitalism: a systematization',
American Sociological Review, 45, 1980, pp 925-942. See also Irving M Zeitlin,
Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
11 - Aanthony Giddens, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis
of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1971, p 170.
12 - See Michael Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle
Ages: The Papal Monarchy with Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1963.
13 - Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, pp 69-72.
14 - Lewis, What Went Wrong?, p 67.
15 - Jane Bays & Nayereh Tohidi (eds), Globalization, Gender
and Religion: The Politics of Women's Rights in Catholic and Muslim Contexts,
New York: Palgrave, 2001.
16 Colum Lynch, 'Islamic bloc, Christian right team up to lobby UN', Washington
Post, 17 June 2002, p A01.
17 - M James Henslin, The Essentials of Sociology, Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon, 2000.
18 - Lewis, What Went Wrong?, p 66.
19 - Ibid, p 157.
20 - Everett Hagen, On the Theory of Social Change, Homewood:
Dorsey Press, 1962.
21 - Lewis, What Went Wrong?, p 154.
22 - Ibid, p 154.
23 - Ibid, p 159.
24 - Ibid, p 22.
25 - Ibid, p 153.
26 - Huntington, Clash of Civilizations.
27 - Ibid, pp 74-75.
28 - Enayat, Hamid, Modern Islamic Political Thought, Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press, 1982, p 84.
29 - Ibid.
30 - Ibid, p 88.
31 - Ibid, p. 87.
32 Shibley Telhami, 'Put Middle East terror in global perspective', Baltimore
Sun, 17 February 2002.
33 - Ann Coulter, 'This is war', National Review On Line, 13 September
34 - Fred Ikle, 'Stopping the next Sept 11', Wall Street Journal,
2 June 2002.
Does this article have spelling or other mistakes? Tell
me to fix it.