With tones of restraint and criticism, U. experts weigh in

Joining four more of Penn's finest scholars, Arthur Waldron deemed Tuesday's unparalleled and unimaginable terrorist attacks the most catastrophic intelligence failure since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.

The History professor, speaking to hundreds from the Penn community at yesterday's academic symposium on terrorism, also demanded a critical re-evaluation of the Central Intelligence Agency.

"You do not stop terrorism by adding guards or increasing airport security," Waldron said. "The CIA is too occupied with technical meetings and satellites. A housecleaning of the CIA is needed from top to bottom."

University administrators invited Waldron, along with Political Science professors including Brendan O'Leary, Ian Lustick and Robert Vitalis and Law Professor Seth Kreimer, to speak on "Responding to Terrorism" following the leveling of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon.

"It seemed to me that it was a good opportunity to get the campus community to focus on the causes and results of terrorism," School of Arts and Sciences Dean Samuel Preston said. "It is important for a university to effectively demonstrate what should be done in such a situation. It is a key institution where ideas are presented and discussed."

And as a result, there were no empty seats in either of the top two tiers of Irvine Auditorium.

Vitalis advised students and faculty alike to examine the situation from an analytical rather than emotional point of view now that the dust from Tuesday is starting to settle.

"The University requires us to take a step back from the situation we are facing as a country and really think this through," said Vitalis, the director of the Middle Eastern Center. "Embrace what the University is doing and take a chance to think about how other people are feeling."

The panelists' speeches were followed by a question-and-answer session. Microphones were set up in four places throughout the auditorium, where audience members were encouraged to ask questions but were limited to one minute for each.

And because dozens from the crowd wished to express their sentiments, Rodin had to cut off the number of people allowed to speak.

The professors largely examined the possible sources behind the attacks, with O'Leary claiming that a group independent of another nation's government is responsible for the catastrophe. O'Leary refuted claims that the terrorist attacks were government sponsored and denied that the event was the modern day Pearl Harbor.

"Secular, ideological movements are usually weaker than nationalist movements," said O'Leary, who formerly headed the Department of Government at the London School of Economics. "This was not another Pearl Harbor -- no government or territorial conquests were associated with such an act."

Waldron agreed with the assertion that not an entire nation, but rather a select group of individuals, was responsible.

"This is clearly the work of a handful of people," Waldron noted. "Terrorism is the weapon of the few or the weak."

And O'Leary cautioned the audience against retaliating by seeking out revenge on the Muslim population.

"To engage in discourse with followers of Islam or the Muslim world would only result in more incidents of the same nature," O'Leary warned the crowd. "Do not do to Muslim and Islam Americans what was done to the Japanese Americans during and after World War II."

Rodin said the symposium was a good starting point from which to find a concrete explanation for the attacks.

"We spent the first few days focusing on the emotional and the spiritual, and [the symposium] is allowing an analytical phase," Rodin said. "Each of us comes away with this understanding of the world outside of the United States."

Students said they were pleasantly surprised by the content of the symposium.

"I do not think students had looked at the situation from all angles," College sophomore Erica Kraus said. "This was a great opportunity to look at this from the entire perspective."

Other students originally expected the discussion and crowd comments to be confrontational.

"I thought it was going to be more retaliatory, focusing on what we could do to fight back," College of General Studies student Melissa Byrne said. "It was very impressive because it was not like that at all."

"I thought the question-and-answer session was very important," College senior Chris Semisch said. "It was interesting to see how speakers reacted to both the rational and irrational comments."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.