Nate
2004-02-08 06:17:34 UTC
Are we safer today than before Bush took office? Does the world respect us
more? Will there ever be an end to the war on terrorism?
President Bush legitimizes the actions of the madmen who slaughtered so many
innocents by stating that the United States is "at War." Surely, this is
not war. The Rules of War are simple. Ask Slobodan Milosevic; targeting
civilians or recklessly disregarding their safety is criminal, not military.
To call the World Trade Center savagery "war" is to accept the terrorists'
position that those who martyr themselves to strike in the name of
oppression should be honored in death as soldiers. On the contrary, killing
innocents dishonors a person.
The "war on terrorism" is like the "war on drugs." Neither can be won with
more security, short of exchanging our freedom for a police state. We can
trade our values, as we have in the past, for false "security." We did that
in Vietnam. We are doing that again in the "war on drugs." America needs
to rise above self-satisfying macho military posturing and calls for
vengeance, because those will inevitably lead to more "terrorism." The only
way America can lead the fight on terrorism is to become, like Caesar's
wife, above suspicion. If we become what we are trying to stop, we lose.
The terrorists will have won. Taking a strong moral position, however, is
risky and can reveal hypocrisy. The United States is not without blame when
it comes to what many people call terrorism.
Nation states, including the United States, define terrorism that equates
the attack on the USS Cole with the attack on the World Trade Center. This
is also how Bin Laden sees these events. If we apply the Rules of War,
however, the attack on the Cole -- combatants targeted in a "war zone" -- is
vastly different from the barbarism that occurred in the attacks on the
World Trade Center. If Bin Laden is at "war" with the United States, a
kamikaze attack on a U.S. warship in hostile waters is part of that "war."
On the other hand, the World Trade Center attack remains unambiguously a
criminal act of terror.
Some people will always feel oppressed in the world, and some will turn to
violence in the name of their cause, whether it is just or unjust. To
question the legitimacy of the oppression is futile. If the terrorist
believes that his oppression warrants blowing up the world, then arguing
about whether his grievances are "just" is absurd and irrelevant, especially
if the "terrorist" has weapons of mass destruction. People who perceive
they are oppressed will resist oppression. To label all resistance, outside
of declared war, as "criminal terrorism" fails to distinguish between Nazi
Germany's White Rose Society and Osama bin Laden's madmen.
Reality is that we cannot stop someone willing to sacrifice himself for his
cause. Acts that may make the WTC tragedy pale in comparison cannot be
stopped. Trucks go within a sidewalk's width of every major skyscraper in
America. We can fortify the Pentagon, but not the country. We can put a
bulletproof barrier between passengers and a cockpit and prevent another
suicide dive bomber, but in an open democracy, there are simply too many
options for "terrorists." From biological agents to the sorts of fertilizer
and diesel fuel explosives Tim McVeigh used, it is foolish to think that
security is the answer. As long as we are a free county, we cannot be
"secure" against a suicide attacker. Therefore, America's main effort
should be to simply make the "terrorists not want to attack innocents.
It may sound facile to argue that the only way terrorism will stop is if the
terrorist wants to stop, but we have had success in this regard before. At
the end of WWI, the horror of mustard and chlorine gas use was such that all
the countries of the world agreed not to use gas in war. Not even Hitler
used gas in combat during his last months. We have kept the nuclear weapons
holstered for 56 years. The U.S. can attempt to do this with terrorism but
it will take a great deal of courage on the part of the United States,
because if we unify the world on the definition of "terrorism" and make it a
criminal act under international law, we will have to face how often we have
violated those rules in name of anti-communism, the drug war, and even U.S.
corporate interests.
The United States cannot train anti-drug paramilitaries in Columbia using
U.S. taxpayer dollars to provide money, transportation and equipment and
then escape responsibility when those paramilitaries slaughter peasants, as
they have. President Bush says, "Anyone who aids the terrorist is as guilty
as those who carry out the act." It is reasonable for the U.S. to be held
responsible for the deaths in Columbia, as it is reasonable for other people
who feel local oppression is stamped "made in USA" to blame America for
their troubles.
Does anybody remember when the Taliban was getting U.S. weapons from the
Reagan Administration? Ironic that those who were our friends are now
called terrorists. But, it isn't anything new. The Taliban may be "freedom
fighters" again someday. No fewer than 15 Nobel Peace Prize winners since
1950 have been wanted for terrorism at some time in their lives. Still,
there is irony in the fact that the very week the United States labels Bin
Laden terrorist, we also name John Negroponte our new United Nations
Ambassador. Negroponte ran the murderous and illegal U.S.-backed terrorist
campaign against communist Nicaragua from his position as Ambassador to
Honduras. We can't name a man who is directly tied to attacks on civilians
in Nicaragua as our U.N. ambassador and expect the world to take us
seriously when we complain about terrorism.
Still, there is some hope that the United States, terrorist organizations,
and a few other nations understand the need to follow the Rules of War in
unconventional situations.
Israel is certainly at war with the Palestinian resistance. Targeting
combatants with pinpoint missile attacks based on excellent intelligence is
defensible, even if some civilians are killed in the crossfire. More
troubling is armed Jewish or Palestinian fundamentalists who blur the
distinction between civilian and combatant. In Desert Storm as well as in
the Balkans, the United States demonstrated a commitment to the principle
that the lives and property of civilians should not be targeted. Even the
inadvertent hit on the Chinese Embassy must be categorized as "fortunes of
war," not terrorism.
On the terrorist side of the equation, the Irish Republican Army has had a
long history of warfare, generally fought by the Rules of War. Civilians
have been killed, as in Baghdad, Beirut, and Sarajevo, but the IRA's policy
is to avoid civilian casualties. The 1996 bomb that exploded in London's
financial district which did over $1.5 billion in damage and tragically
killed two who didn't get the warning demonstrates unconventional war can be
brought to a nation's capital within the Rules of War. That Ian Paisley,
the fundamentalist Protestant hatemonger who turned his back on the
Vatican's representative at the European Parliament and calls the Pope the
"Anti-Christ," has not been assassinated is a tribute to the IRA policy of
following the Rules by targeting combatants, not civilian politicians.
Certainly it would be better if those who feel the need to engage in large
scale violence follow the lead of the IRA and not Bin Laden. For most of
the last fifty years, the U.S. and other large nations have defined violent
political acts committed against U.S. interests as "terrorism." At the same
time, however, the United States has defined similar acts committed by its
agents or even its own armed forces as "necessary security measures."
Terrorism should be defined by the actions that have been taken, not by who
does them. Targeting civilians or recklessly disregarding their lives and
property is a criminal act, even if it is done by the "legitimate forces of
security." When authoritarian dictators oppress their people using U.S.
supplied weapons, U.S. trained national guardsmen, and U.S. money, the U.S.
must accept partial responsibility.
Narrow-minded religious fundamentalists shouldn't receive U.S. support as
they did during the Reagan-Bush Administration, because that support of
those who do not share our values can (and did) come back to haunt the
policymakers who made the decision. Twenty years ago, the Taliban and Bin
Laden were both U.S. clients. In the current conflict, a U.S. helicopter
may very well go down to a stinger missile, provided in the name of
"anti-communism."
The United States can be part of a solution to the problem of terrorism, but
we must apply an unbiased definition of terrorism to every situation. Bin
Laden was as much a terrorist when he was fighting the Russians as he is
now. Our self-serving blindness to acts committed by our clients, and
sometimes by our own soldiers, only stokes the fires of anti-American
terrorism. If we are going to hold those who helped as responsible, the
principle should apply to all terrorist acts, not just those committed by
our enemies. The world needs to agree on what "terrorism" is before we
begin to try and wipe it out.
more? Will there ever be an end to the war on terrorism?
President Bush legitimizes the actions of the madmen who slaughtered so many
innocents by stating that the United States is "at War." Surely, this is
not war. The Rules of War are simple. Ask Slobodan Milosevic; targeting
civilians or recklessly disregarding their safety is criminal, not military.
To call the World Trade Center savagery "war" is to accept the terrorists'
position that those who martyr themselves to strike in the name of
oppression should be honored in death as soldiers. On the contrary, killing
innocents dishonors a person.
The "war on terrorism" is like the "war on drugs." Neither can be won with
more security, short of exchanging our freedom for a police state. We can
trade our values, as we have in the past, for false "security." We did that
in Vietnam. We are doing that again in the "war on drugs." America needs
to rise above self-satisfying macho military posturing and calls for
vengeance, because those will inevitably lead to more "terrorism." The only
way America can lead the fight on terrorism is to become, like Caesar's
wife, above suspicion. If we become what we are trying to stop, we lose.
The terrorists will have won. Taking a strong moral position, however, is
risky and can reveal hypocrisy. The United States is not without blame when
it comes to what many people call terrorism.
Nation states, including the United States, define terrorism that equates
the attack on the USS Cole with the attack on the World Trade Center. This
is also how Bin Laden sees these events. If we apply the Rules of War,
however, the attack on the Cole -- combatants targeted in a "war zone" -- is
vastly different from the barbarism that occurred in the attacks on the
World Trade Center. If Bin Laden is at "war" with the United States, a
kamikaze attack on a U.S. warship in hostile waters is part of that "war."
On the other hand, the World Trade Center attack remains unambiguously a
criminal act of terror.
Some people will always feel oppressed in the world, and some will turn to
violence in the name of their cause, whether it is just or unjust. To
question the legitimacy of the oppression is futile. If the terrorist
believes that his oppression warrants blowing up the world, then arguing
about whether his grievances are "just" is absurd and irrelevant, especially
if the "terrorist" has weapons of mass destruction. People who perceive
they are oppressed will resist oppression. To label all resistance, outside
of declared war, as "criminal terrorism" fails to distinguish between Nazi
Germany's White Rose Society and Osama bin Laden's madmen.
Reality is that we cannot stop someone willing to sacrifice himself for his
cause. Acts that may make the WTC tragedy pale in comparison cannot be
stopped. Trucks go within a sidewalk's width of every major skyscraper in
America. We can fortify the Pentagon, but not the country. We can put a
bulletproof barrier between passengers and a cockpit and prevent another
suicide dive bomber, but in an open democracy, there are simply too many
options for "terrorists." From biological agents to the sorts of fertilizer
and diesel fuel explosives Tim McVeigh used, it is foolish to think that
security is the answer. As long as we are a free county, we cannot be
"secure" against a suicide attacker. Therefore, America's main effort
should be to simply make the "terrorists not want to attack innocents.
It may sound facile to argue that the only way terrorism will stop is if the
terrorist wants to stop, but we have had success in this regard before. At
the end of WWI, the horror of mustard and chlorine gas use was such that all
the countries of the world agreed not to use gas in war. Not even Hitler
used gas in combat during his last months. We have kept the nuclear weapons
holstered for 56 years. The U.S. can attempt to do this with terrorism but
it will take a great deal of courage on the part of the United States,
because if we unify the world on the definition of "terrorism" and make it a
criminal act under international law, we will have to face how often we have
violated those rules in name of anti-communism, the drug war, and even U.S.
corporate interests.
The United States cannot train anti-drug paramilitaries in Columbia using
U.S. taxpayer dollars to provide money, transportation and equipment and
then escape responsibility when those paramilitaries slaughter peasants, as
they have. President Bush says, "Anyone who aids the terrorist is as guilty
as those who carry out the act." It is reasonable for the U.S. to be held
responsible for the deaths in Columbia, as it is reasonable for other people
who feel local oppression is stamped "made in USA" to blame America for
their troubles.
Does anybody remember when the Taliban was getting U.S. weapons from the
Reagan Administration? Ironic that those who were our friends are now
called terrorists. But, it isn't anything new. The Taliban may be "freedom
fighters" again someday. No fewer than 15 Nobel Peace Prize winners since
1950 have been wanted for terrorism at some time in their lives. Still,
there is irony in the fact that the very week the United States labels Bin
Laden terrorist, we also name John Negroponte our new United Nations
Ambassador. Negroponte ran the murderous and illegal U.S.-backed terrorist
campaign against communist Nicaragua from his position as Ambassador to
Honduras. We can't name a man who is directly tied to attacks on civilians
in Nicaragua as our U.N. ambassador and expect the world to take us
seriously when we complain about terrorism.
Still, there is some hope that the United States, terrorist organizations,
and a few other nations understand the need to follow the Rules of War in
unconventional situations.
Israel is certainly at war with the Palestinian resistance. Targeting
combatants with pinpoint missile attacks based on excellent intelligence is
defensible, even if some civilians are killed in the crossfire. More
troubling is armed Jewish or Palestinian fundamentalists who blur the
distinction between civilian and combatant. In Desert Storm as well as in
the Balkans, the United States demonstrated a commitment to the principle
that the lives and property of civilians should not be targeted. Even the
inadvertent hit on the Chinese Embassy must be categorized as "fortunes of
war," not terrorism.
On the terrorist side of the equation, the Irish Republican Army has had a
long history of warfare, generally fought by the Rules of War. Civilians
have been killed, as in Baghdad, Beirut, and Sarajevo, but the IRA's policy
is to avoid civilian casualties. The 1996 bomb that exploded in London's
financial district which did over $1.5 billion in damage and tragically
killed two who didn't get the warning demonstrates unconventional war can be
brought to a nation's capital within the Rules of War. That Ian Paisley,
the fundamentalist Protestant hatemonger who turned his back on the
Vatican's representative at the European Parliament and calls the Pope the
"Anti-Christ," has not been assassinated is a tribute to the IRA policy of
following the Rules by targeting combatants, not civilian politicians.
Certainly it would be better if those who feel the need to engage in large
scale violence follow the lead of the IRA and not Bin Laden. For most of
the last fifty years, the U.S. and other large nations have defined violent
political acts committed against U.S. interests as "terrorism." At the same
time, however, the United States has defined similar acts committed by its
agents or even its own armed forces as "necessary security measures."
Terrorism should be defined by the actions that have been taken, not by who
does them. Targeting civilians or recklessly disregarding their lives and
property is a criminal act, even if it is done by the "legitimate forces of
security." When authoritarian dictators oppress their people using U.S.
supplied weapons, U.S. trained national guardsmen, and U.S. money, the U.S.
must accept partial responsibility.
Narrow-minded religious fundamentalists shouldn't receive U.S. support as
they did during the Reagan-Bush Administration, because that support of
those who do not share our values can (and did) come back to haunt the
policymakers who made the decision. Twenty years ago, the Taliban and Bin
Laden were both U.S. clients. In the current conflict, a U.S. helicopter
may very well go down to a stinger missile, provided in the name of
"anti-communism."
The United States can be part of a solution to the problem of terrorism, but
we must apply an unbiased definition of terrorism to every situation. Bin
Laden was as much a terrorist when he was fighting the Russians as he is
now. Our self-serving blindness to acts committed by our clients, and
sometimes by our own soldiers, only stokes the fires of anti-American
terrorism. If we are going to hold those who helped as responsible, the
principle should apply to all terrorist acts, not just those committed by
our enemies. The world needs to agree on what "terrorism" is before we
begin to try and wipe it out.
--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
Gentleman Jim fights for you!
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
Gentleman Jim fights for you!
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/