Our War on Terrorism

[MikeCT]

A few weeks old but interesting

I am calling it "our" war on terrorism because I want to distinguish it from Bush's war on terrorism, and from Sharon's, and from Putin's. What their wars have in common is that they are based on an enormous deception: persuading the people of their countries that you can deal with terrorism by war. These rulers say you can end our fear of terrorism--of sudden, deadly, vicious attacks, a fear new to Americans--by drawing an enormous circle around an area of the world where terrorists come from (Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya) or can be claimed to be connected with (Iraq), and by sending in tanks and planes to bomb and terrorize whoever lives within that circle.

Since war is itself the most extreme form of terrorism, a war on terrorism is profoundly self-contradictory. Is it strange, or normal, that no major political figure has pointed this out?

Even within their limited definition of terrorism, they--the governments of the United States, Israel, Russia--are clearly failing. As I write this, three years after the events of September 11, the death toll for American servicemen has surpassed 1,000, more than 150 Russian children have died in a terrorist takeover of a school, Afghanistan is in chaos, and the number of significant terrorist attacks rose to a twenty-one-year high in 2003, according to official State Department figures. The highly respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London has reported that "over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq."

With the failure so obvious, and the President tripping over his words trying to pretend otherwise (August 30: "I don't think you can win" and the next day: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning"), it astonishes us that the polls show a majority of Americans believing the President has done "a good job" in the war on terrorism.

I can think of two reasons for this.

First, the press and television have not played the role of gadflies, of whistleblowers, the role that the press should play in a society whose fundamental doctrine of democracy (see the Declaration of Independence) is that you must not give blind trust to the government. They have not made clear to the public--I mean vividly, dramatically clear--what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq.

I am speaking not only of the deaths and mutilations of American youth, but the deaths and mutilations of Iraqi children. (I am reading at this moment of an American bombing of houses in the city of Fallujah, leaving four children dead, with the U.S. military saying this was part of a "precision strike" on "a building frequently used by terrorists.") I believe that the American people's natural compassion would come to the fore if they truly understood that we are terrorizing other people by our "war on terror."

A second reason that so many people accept Bush's leadership is that no counterargument has come from the opposition party. John Kerry has not challenged Bush's definition of terrorism. He has not been forthright. He has dodged and feinted, saying that Bush has waged "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Is there a right war, a right place, a right time? Kerry has not spoken clearly, boldly, in such a way as to appeal to the common sense of the American people, at least half of whom have turned against the war, with many more looking for the wise words that a true leader provides. He has not clearly challenged the fundamental premise of the Bush Administration: that the massive violence of war is the proper response to the kind of terrorist attack that took place on September 11, 2001.

Let us begin by recognizing that terrorist acts--the killing of innocent people to achieve some desired goal--are morally unacceptable and must be repudiated and opposed by anyone claiming to care about human rights. The September 11 attacks, the suicide bombings in Israel, the taking of hostages by Chechen nationalists--all are outside the bounds of any ethical principles.

This must be emphasized, because as soon as you suggest that it is important, to consider something other than violent retaliation, you are accused of sympathizing with the terrorists. It is a cheap way of ending a discussion without examining intelligent alternatives to present policy.

Then the question becomes: What is the appropriate way to respond to such awful acts? The answer so far, given by Bush, Sharon, and Putin, is military action. We have enough evidence now to tell us that this does not stop terrorism, may indeed provoke more terrorism, and at the same time leads to the deaths of hundreds, even thousands, of innocent people who happen to live in the vicinity of suspected terrorists.

What can account for the fact that these obviously ineffective, even counterproductive, responses have been supported by the people of Russia, Israel, the United States? It's not hard to figure that out. It is fear, a deep, paralyzing fear, a dread so profound that one's normal rational faculties are distorted, and so people rush to embrace policies that have only one thing in their favor: They make you feel that something is being done. In the absence of an alternative, in the presence of a policy vacuum, filling that vacuum with a decisive act becomes acceptable.

And when the opposition party, the opposition Presidential candidate, can offer nothing to fill that policy vacuum, the public feels it has no choice but to go along with what is being done. It is emotionally satisfying, even if rational thought suggests it does not work and cannot work.

If John Kerry cannot offer an alternative to war, then it is the responsibility of citizens, with every possible resource they can muster, to present such an alternative to the American public.

Yes, we can try to guard in every possible way against future attacks, by trying to secure airports, seaports, railroads, other centers of transportation. Yes, we can try to capture known terrorists. But neither of those actions can bring an end to terrorism, which comes from the fact that millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere are angered by American policies, and out of these millions come those who will carry their anger to fanatic extremes.

The CIA senior terrorism analyst who has written a book signed "Anonymous" has said bluntly that U.S. policies--supporting Sharon, making war on Afghanistan and Iraq--"are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world."

Unless we reexamine our policies--our quartering of soldiers in a hundred countries (the quartering of foreign soldiers, remember, was one of the grievances of the American revolutionaries), our support of the occupation of Palestinian lands, our insistence on controlling the oil of the Middle East--we will always live in fear. If we were to announce that we will reconsider those policies, and began to change them, we might start to dry up the huge reservoir of hatred where terrorists are hatched.

Whoever the next President will be, it is up to the American people to demand that he begin a bold reconsideration of the role our country should play in the world. That is the only possible solution to a future of never-ending, pervasive fear. That would be "our" war on terrorism. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a columnist for The Progressive.

[bryanthompson]

Look, your war on poverty didn't work. Your trying to negotiate with terrorists and trying to make allies out of clearly corrupt leaders of other countries makes anything your side says worthless. Show me _any_ of your victories via pacifism and containment, and maybe your words will be more then just more elitest drivel.

[MikeCT]

Ghandi.

[Moneyguy1]

Ghandi is good. Almost singlehandedly created one of the world's largest democracies

Jesus Christ...never took up arms, never advocated revenge, talked of peace and left a legacy of one of the three major religions in the world.

I'm sure others can be found as well.

"Blessed are the peacemakers...." An often overlooked tenet of Christianity

Bryant, Dismissing past programs out of hand is illogical and petty, especially given the advantages of hindsight. Even the "war on poverty", although not reaching all the goals it set up for itself was a noble cause. Such programs must be judged not only on what they did and did not accomplish, but must also be examined in the context of their own time, and what they hoped to do. A full examination would include the reasons they did or did not succeed.

Personally, I don't like the concept of "The War on" anything...It implies something destructive and negative. Programs that did succeed like those during the 30s depression, NEVER aligned themselves with the word "war". And doesn't "The Peace Corps" with individuals volunteering their time have a far more positive outlook?

Am I completely against war? I don't think so since I was in the military for six years. Do I think it is sometimes necessary? Probably. WOuld I go if called back? I don't really know, and it is a moot question at my age. Personally, I think the wars should be fought by the leaders who start them rather than young surrogates with little or no choice in the matter.

I wonder if you want to label me as an elitist as well since I have some opposing views. Label away.

Amazing what the faceless nature of the internet does for ones bravado.

[jyl]

Terrorism doesn't just "exist", it has causes.

The fewer causes, the fewer terrorists.

Let's ask a hypothetical. If there never had been an Israel and hence no Arab-Israeli conflict, then today would there be nearly as many unemployed radicalized young Muslims in the Middle East who see the United States as a hated enemy and are thus potential terrorist recruits? Clearly not.

Another. There is an Israel and there was a conflict. But if, 15 years ago, the Arabs and the Israelis had peacefully resolved their conflict and the Palestinians were today secure, hopeful and prosperous, today would there be nearly as many such recruits? Most likely not.

Finally. If, in the next 10 years, the Arabs and the Israelis peacefully resolve their conflict and the Palestinians become secure, hopeful and prosperous, then in 25 years will there be be nearly as many such recruits? Probably not.

We're going to have to control terrorism in many different ways. Increased border and domestic security is one. Pressure on governments that fund and support terrorists - stating with our friends the Saudis - is another. Law enforcement and military operations, international if possible, unilateral when unavoidable, to disrupt terrorist activities is another. And a part of this should be, must be, to attack the causes of terrorism. That will very likely mean pressuring the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach a sort of peace.

It is difficult and costly to find and kill terrorists. The fewer reasons people have for becoming terrorists in the first place, the better.

By the way, and this is directed not only at bryanthompson, how about if we try to be a little less aggressive and personal in these discussions. Throwing around put-downs like "elitist drivel" (or, for that matter, "dumb hick") is getting pretty close to simple name-calling.

[M.D. Holloway]

you guys are doin MikeCT's homework for him. Nice - wish I had the internet when I was in school.

Your profs at Central will relish how well you can tackle the left and right side of an opinion.

[rrpjr]

I assumed MikeCT’s piece was inspired by either Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. Both use similar forms of polemic -- the statement of the "obvious and irrefutable" truth that is really anything but. Where to begin with the fallacies of this argument?

First, if we really wish to be "clear," we should begin by clarifying that the US did not begin the war in Iraq. This war began some 12 years ago upon the invasion of Kuwait, a deliberate and belligerent incursion into the sovereign land of a US ally, and continued to be fought every day during the term of Bill Clinton's presidency as US and British pilots protected the no-fly-zone between Iraq and Kurdish provinces – despite the unconditional writ of surrender Saddan Hussein signed and flouted before the entire body on “United Nations.” "Our war" in fact may be the only reason the Kurds are alive today. Understandably, Clinton and especially Bush are beloved figures among the Kurds. These are a hugely heroic people who have held to their faith in us despite years of bitter disappointment, and whose liberation from Saddam Hussein's terror and genocide alone may be a moral justification for this war. (Incidentally, the Left used to care about genocide, at least they did so as recently as the 1990s when many democratic members of congress were urging Bill Clinton to invade Rwanda -- a place where we had no comparable strategic national interest -- even without the all-important UN endorsement. I believe even Howard Dean wrote him a letter urging him to circumvent the UN. How quickly we forget.) United Nations resolutions calling for action against Iraq were ignored for more than decade by all but the US and British.

In any case, the author (Zinn, I guess) states that the war is based on an "enormous deception": persuading people that you can deal with terrorism by war. Is that so? I think the evidence so far is plainly on the side of war as one successful tactic in fighting terrorism. War in Afghanistan has uprooted the primary training grounds and sanctuary of a large contingent of Al Qaeda. They are now billeted in caves in northern Pakistan producing bad home movies instead of bombs. It also had the small subsidiary benefits (small, apparently to the Left) of freeing a huge number of people from the oppressive dictates of Islamic totalitarianism. Not to say the results are perfect, or the job is done, but I think most people and certainly most women in Afghanistan are pleased at their new freedoms and rights. I don't believe our rulers ever said, as Zinn states, that we would end our fear of terrorism by "encircling countries and waging war on them." Pres. Bush has repeatedly said that the war on terrorism would be fought in many ways on many fronts and results would take years. War is one way, and Afghanistan and Iraq are two fronts.

As for the claim that "war is the most extreme form of terrorism," again stated as an indisputable truth, I dispute it. It is the most extreme form of diplomacy but it is by no means, a priori, a form of terrorism as we have come to define it. Declaring an intent to invade a fascist regime which had the equivalent of 18 outstanding criminal warrants against it is not a form of terrorism, it is the rational act of a civilized people interested in upholding a standard of civilized conduct. Iraq was the crack house on the corner of the civilized world. Either it is allowed to remain, or it is put out of business. We chose the latter.

Again, true to absolutist form, Zinn states we are "obviously" failing in our war. He then cites death tolls to confirm this. This is an old trick of the Left. First, we are not failing. We are making significant progress in dismantling terrorist infrastructures. Terrorists need nation hosts to operate. We can't ignore this fact. Also, nowhere does Zinn or the Left ever cite the "other" death toll numbers, that is, of people no longer being killed by Hussein. I believe a conservative estimate of the people he killed was 25,000 a year, and nearly a quarter million over a decade, and who knows for the entire term of his regime. As for the "highly respected" International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, it is only highly respected by those who like its findings. It is a Leftist think tank.

As for the press and television not playing the role of gadflies -- exactly what press and television does he mean? ABC, CBS, Reuters, BBC, CNN, NY Times, all at one point embarrassed themselves by reporting falsehoods about Iraq presumably in order to embarrass Bush. I would say their gad flying was more than equal to the task.

Yes, war is bad and kills children and innocent people. This is terrible and no one can deny it. Yet never in the history of warfare has a major military power taken more precautions not to injure the innocent, and no nation on earth spends more in blood and treasure to reconstruct and restore the nations it defeats and occupies. This day, as I write, there are officers and enlisted men from all over America working at great risk and low pay to rebuild schools and hospitals and to bring Iraq not simply back to the point it was, but well beyond that, into a truly functioning and free nation. Some may see this as the least we can do, but it is more than any nation in history has ever done before.

Zinn is certain about the wrong ways to fight terrorism. However, the best he can come up with as a hard, practical alternative is a "reexamination" of our policies in the hope we can become less despised. As if any such reexamination would somehow palliate terrorists. Herein resides the biggest and most dangerous conceit of the Left -- a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are up against. The Left used to be in the foreground of taking on something as vile as Islamicist fascism, something that posed a danger to everything it values: secular education, all human freedoms, women’s rights, art, science, all forms of empirical truth-seeking. But it is not there now. It has fallen into self-loathing moral relativism, confusing Palestinian homeland issues and troop allocations and oil politics with what is essentially an ambitious, totalitarian and death-inspired fanaticism that holds to a notion of hegemony which, if it had the means, would subdue the entire world tomorrow. Look closely at the enemy’s practice of beheading people on videotape with dull kitchen knives (that is, if you believe they even are the “enemy”). It is the perfect metaphor for them.

[Mule]

Very well said. I guess Mike & JYP would have been for negotiating with Japan on Dec 8 1941.

Remember 30% of the people are against anything. 30% were against responding to Pearl Harbor. So don't let the fact that people write this kind of dribble influence what you think.

[M.D. Holloway]

If so much of the media is leaning left - other than actually experiencing what is going on personally, how is one to really form an accurate opinion? I can go to 100 websites on a topic, find many that I feel or credible and form an opinion - but that my be may off base.

Seriously - how can I really form an accurate opinion on things that are happening in the Middle Beast or South America or Africa unless I talk to a bunch of their local folks personally and try to understand how it effects them and ultimately me? Rush et al swings sweetly right, the rest go to left field - McNeal/Learher (sp) was my only foundation but that has changed.

[gaijinda]

wow, rrpjr. that was good!

[jyl]

There are some good, thoughful print media sources. The Economist is my favorite, IMO the best English-language news weekly in the world. BusinessWeek is so-so. Time and Newsweek are fishwrap.

Figure out the biases of your media sources, and be accordingly skeptical. I read the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal but am aware of how they lean.

TV and cable media are quite unreliable, in my opinion. Fine for breaking news, entertainment, pandering, baiting, and soft stories; not for investigation or analysis. Radio is similar. That goes for Rush Limbaugh as well as for Al Franken.

Internet is good for hunting down very specific data points. Reliability decreases rapidly as you go from hard numerical data to qualitative "facts" to anecdotal stories. Also good for different points of view, if you treat them like the slightly inebriated conversations you'd drift in and out of at a party - maybe interesting, but you wouldn't put your own money down without a lot more research.

On some subjects, you just can't find your own information, so I end up just having to trust the whatever the current Administration is. My rule is that if they lie to me once (on a major issue, I know there's little "white lies" all the time), I'll never take their word again on anything. (Like the WMDs . . . )

[island911]

Originally posted by gaijinda
wow, rrpjr. that was good!

Yep. Excellent.

[Moneyguy1]

Time and Newsweek are fishwrap?

Hogwash!!

Too high a clay content in the paper and too small to be of any use. Give me the Times anyday!!

[Superman]

Yes, rrpjr, that was good. Very good. Nicely stated. I don't agree with all of it, but it's well thought-out and elegantly presented. Nice job, for a conservative. (wink)

[RickM]

Originally posted by Superman
Yes, rrpjr, that was good. Very good. Nicely stated. I don't agree with all of it, but it's well thought-out and elegantly presented. Nice job, for a conservative. (wink)

Agree, well layed out and written. Did you expect less from a Carrera guy?

[rrpjr]

Thanks for the gracious responses. I'm glad to be a part of this community, right and left (wink).