In a conversation with an acquaintance, I pointed out that terrorists were the new Communists. He questioned this link and suggested that as a so-called opponent of the war on terrorism, this is a bad analogy since both were/are dangerous. My response:
My linking of terrorists and Communists was related how the former is used as a bludgeon to try to silence dissent and pretend one party has a monopoly on patriotism just as the latter was a generation ago. It used to be that if you didn't believe in rampant militarism, you were soft on communism. Now, if you don't believe in rampant militarism, you're soft on terrorism.
I do object the "war on terrorism" as it's currently being undertaken because a war against terrorism, in the classic military sense, can not succeed. I certainly object to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with dealing with terrorism, but it has clearly increased the likelihood of terrorism. It has also brought American targets much closer to the terrorists and thus faciliated their task.
My acquiantance himself said of the "war on drugs": declaring something a "war" implies the need to "win" it through complete and utter victory, which is of course impossible in this case as with every other form of crime.
This is an EXCELLENT point and I'm baffled that he doesn't see how it also applies to terrorism.
In fact, I object to the way the "war on terrorism" is being fought. I object to doing something simply for the sake of doing something, to soothe our rage for action, even if that action is ultimately counterproductive.
I object to the way the fight against terrorism is being conducted because those fighting it don't have a clue as to its causes. They think that terrorists "hate us because we're free." Do they really think millions of people actually hate freedom? The truth is that millions of people don't see America as representing freedom in the first place. "They hate us because we're free"? This garbage is so self-serving that no self-respecting satirist wouldn't dare make it up.
Some on the left suggest that terrorism is caused by poverty. This is as facile as "they hate us because we're free." If poverty were the only factor, then the international terrorism's epicenter would be in sub-Saharan Africa. But terrorism (for export to the west) is virtually non-existent in that part of the world.
How can we counter something as nebulous as terrorism if we don't have a clue (or are willfully self-delusional) about what's causing it?
Simply put, terrorism is caused by resentment. It's caused by a widespread lack of dignity and a sense of powerlessness. And it's caused by a few extremists who cunningly exploit the widespread sentiment toward a designated scapegoat. The scapegoat can be effective even if it's only a secondary cause of the lack of dignity and sense of powerlessness.
Since our leaders don't have a clue about these causes, it doesn't have a clue how to counter them. Thus they fall back on the one option we're certain we do well: militarism. This is why the "war on terrorism" is failing. A military war on terrorism can never succeed.
Eliminating international terrorism can never happen with a war; it requires something more akin to policing. War is random, brute force. Imagine if every time the police tried to arrest someone, it resulted in a shootout. Police action does involve the threat, and sometimes the use, of force. But it relies more on persuasion and collaboration. Oh, and police action also is supposed to be based on respect for the law as well.
The United States government supports oppressive dictatorships around the globe, notably in the Arab world. The US government need to demand that our allies respect human rights and democracy and practice good governance and permit space for political opposition. If the regimes object to our "meddling," then they are free to do so. And they cease to be our allies. And they cease to receive American aid. We can't invade every country who doesn't do things exactly as we'd like, but the American taxpayers don't need to subside those who most odiously offend our values.
Americans like to see their country as a beacon of freedom and liberty. The people of Egypt or Tunisia live in a corrupt police state that oppresses them on a daily basis, that throws people in jail because they are gay or because they criticize the head of state or because they dare run an independent media outlet. And then the US government lauds their dictators as a true friends of America. Is it any wonder their people don't quite view America as a beacon of freedom and liberty?
A lot Americans who've never been abroad or don't read foreign media don't appreciate the dichotomy between our perception of ourselves and others' perceptions of us. Many Americans think that what our soldiers did 20 or 50 or 100 years ago should immunize our government against criticism of what it's doing today. This perception gap leads to simplistic falsehoods like "they hate us because we're free."
Remember the example of Iran in 1979. The US government eagerly supported the corrupt and repressive Shah for decades (who they installed after the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government). Washington was so eager to prop up the Shah because he was "our SOB" that the US was oblivious to warning signs of discontent against a tired, hated regime. So people gravitated to the Islamist movement because it was seen as the ONLY alternative to the Shah's corruption and oppression.
The US was shocked with the Islamist revolution toppled the Shah and took all those Americans hostage. "Iran was our friend," we thought. Except Iran wasn't our friend, the Shah was our friend. This mistake is one the American government made time and time and time again throughout the Cold War. And we see evidence of it again now.
In Iran, by blindly and recklessly supporting one autocratic regime, we got one that was even worse AND anti-American. One could make a similiar, though imperfect, analogy to the Batista regime in Cuba that was toppled by Castro. Or the Somoza regime in Nicaragua that was overthrown by the Sandinistas.
The Cold War offers other lessons that the Terrorist Warriors (the new Cold Warriors) would do well to remember. One fundamental truth about the Cold War is that Eastern Europe was not liberated from Communist oppression by American tanks rolling into Prague or American jets bombing Warsaw. Eastern Europe was liberated by the Eastern European peoples who finally got sick of the way their lives were being ruined by the autocratic leaders. American support was mainly moral and probably financial. It wasn't military. Eastern Europe was ultimately liberated by the courage of its own people who decided to take charge of their countries. Once this happened, the Communist house of cards did not take long to collapse.
The Arab world can only truly be liberated if it's done in the same manner. Initiated by its own people. If we are on the right side of this struggle AND offer our support in the right manner, then we will be respected. If we do it the wrong way, by shoving things down their throats and meddling in their countries' affairs and supporting democracy only when it produces a result we want, then they will be even more anti-American.
The sentiment toward America in Eastern Europe is a testament of how we are respected when we do things the right way. The sentiment toward us in Latin America is a testament of how we are despised when we do things the wrong way.
We will not convince the hard core of extremists to come over to our camp. Osama bin Laden will never run a McDonald's or The Gap franchise. But extremists, just like dictatorships, are always a tiny minority of the population that require the support and complicity of large numbers ordinary people. Once that support and complicity evaporates, well, I cite the Eastern Europe example again.
Right now, those ordinary people, the masses, only see two options. One is the decadence, corruption and oppression of their regimes that is, in their eyes, sponsored by America. The other is this Islamist ideology that talks about religious fidelity and self-reliance.
If we were seen as sponsoring a third option, the movement for human rights, good governance and democracy, then we'd be seen as the good guys. And the small band of terrorists would be starved of the oxygen of support they need to perpetrate their vile crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment