Does terrorism against the US actually exist or is it just an excuse for Bush and the neo-cons to go marauding around the world? The answer to that question is that both statements are true.
We should not confuse Bush's disasterous military response to terrorism with the existence of terrorism. There really are groups of people who hate the US and would like nothing more than to strike back at us. The question becomes, what should our response to terrorism be? Clearly, the military response, at least as implemented by Bush and company, has been catastrophic to the both the US and to the global community of nations. Instead of working for global peace (does anyone still talk about such objectives?), Bush has created a much more polarized world and badly weakened the US in the process. Our military is weaker; our treasury is weaker; our global prestige is weaker; our alliances are weaker; and our national spirit is weaker. All this weakness has occurred at a time when many countries, especially China, India and Russia, are growing much stronger. The damage Bush and the neo-cons have caused knows no boundaries.
So, if massive military intrusion is not a viable response to terrorism, what is? Democrats have spoken about deploying more military personnel to Afghanistan. Obama has said that diverting troops from Afghanistan and moving them to Iraq greatly weakened our efforts to capture Bin Laden and to stabilize the new Afghani government. Perhaps it is true that "we had Bin Laden and let him get away." But do you believe we could have "built" a stable Afghanistan had we left a massive troop presence in place there? I just don't believe we can "build stable governments" by becoming occupiers.
Any sane response to terrorism has to start with a very deep and honest examination of what motivates terrorists to act. We need to start with the simple maxim: "know thy enemy." Why do they want to attack the US or US interests? Could our own policies have triggered a violent response overseas and were our actions appropriate? Some seem to assert that even beginning such an introspective process is by default "blaming the US." I strongly disagree. No nation should set itself above examining its own conduct. In the history of mankind, few evils have caused more suffering, death and destruction than blind nationalism cheered on by flags a-waving.
While a military response to terrorism might give a shocked and fearful nation an instant sense that something is being done, it is a foolish response that inevitably results in even greater suffering. The military response to terrorism has made the US far less safe. In the court of global public opinion, few nations condone what the US has done. They were with us after 9/11; they are no longer. Clearly, a more reasoned approach is needed.
The process for determining a response to terrorism should be: 1. Why do they hate us? 2. Are their reasons legitimate? 3. Are their tactics legitimate? 4. How should we respond?
Without great elaboration here, I believe the root causes of terrorism directed at the US are, to a very significant degree, reactions to US conduct in the world. Most of this conduct can be traced back to our government's catering to corporate interests. Corporations in certain industries, with the muscle of the US government and the US military supporting them, have sought to exploit citizens of foreign countries by laying claim to their resources (e.g. oil) or by propping up oppressive governments through the sale of arms and "repressive" technologies. In the case of Middle Eastern terrorism, the strong bond between the US and Israel has been an additional source of anti-US hatred. The solution to the problems caused by that alliance is not to weaken the alliance but rather to use all the leverage possible to help bring about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US must become an honest broker for peace and justice. Absent that, our alliance with Israel becomes a magnet for more terrorism. So, in response to the first two questions about determining a response to terrorism, my view is that they hate us because of our conduct in the world and that their reasons are legitimate. The US occupies; it oppresses; it exploits.
The third question asks whether terrorism is a "legitimate" tactic? This is a very difficult question. We should not under any circumstances condone attacks against innocent civilians. On that basis alone, we should readily condemn the tactics of groups like Al Queda. While we shouldn't condone their tactics, we should certainly try to understand their motivation for using them. It is certainly not reasonable to expect groups fighting against the US to use conventional warfare. It is nonsense to expect them to send bombers to take out our military installations or to send a fleet of submarines to destroy our navy. Nations that can so overwhelmingly dominate a conventional war are naive to expect weaker adversaries to "play by their rules." So, if not conventional combat, what else is left to them besides terrorism? My view is that by our rapacious conduct throughout the Middle East, we have essentially left them no choice. I don't condone the choice but I also understand that they really have no alternative. If they do it, it's wrong, but there's really nothing else they can do ... a perfect Catch 22. Simplistic statements that "terrorism is evil" just don't "cover the waterfront." At some point, the yearning to be free from imperialism, oppression and poverty supercedes all the other "moralities." As they say in New Hampshire, "live free or die."
And finally, the fourth question on terrorism is how should the US respond? If Bush and the neo-cons are wrong, have the Democrats been right? I don't hear the Democratic candidates talking about US conduct as a cause of global terrorism. I see that as a very, very serious deficiency in the Democratic message. Democratic opposition to Bush has come only in the form of tactics but fails to address the underlying causes of the terrorism directed at the US. I am deeply worried that Democrats will never openly criticize the US contribution to terrorism because that would be seen as un-American or unpatriotic and would be politically damaging to their campaigns. While they are undoubtedly right about the politics, the problem is, that means our system of politics precludes telling the American people the truth and it precludes those seeking high office from leading the country in the right direction.
One thing's for sure, the US cannot sustain its empire without the most dire consequences and someone better start delivering that message and rallying an opposition. We are very rapidly running out of time. As the election process races to the finish line, the silence on this most critical issue has been deafening. The truly tragic truth is that our political institutions put so much emphasis on winning elections that they are unable to do and say what is best for the country. The major parties are seemingly unable and unwilling to stick a knife deep into the back of the corporate beast that promotes its greedy interests at the expense of foreign peoples all over the world. The result will be more and more terrorism directed against the US. Until Americans learn that it's not which party has better answers but whether either party actually has answers, we will face a very dark future indeed.
About the author: welshTerrier2 believes all citizens must focus on restoring power to the people. Corporations control our agenda. They promote war. They export our jobs to the lowest bidder. They pollute our air and water. They promote laws to benefit their greedy shareholders at our expense. They control the puppet politicians through their campaign contributions. They control the mainstream media.
The dual disasters of global warming and a bankrupt national Treasury demand rapid, radical change. It's hard to envision either of the major parties advocating anything but politically safe policies. To continue supporting them in these times of crisis is nothing short of treasonous.
What makes you think that anyone of either of the major parties isn’t perpetuating terrorism? Both need military spending to maintain our war economy. It's all we have left.
If there weren't terrorists members of this current so-called government would invent them - which they have done a pretty good job of doing. Is it even feasible that so-called educated, elected officials wouldn't be aware of what causes terrorism or that using military tactics is the absolute worst thing one can do in combating it? Of course they know. But they won't do what's necessary because they don't want to end terrorism, they want more of it. The proof of this is in their actions and what they say.
Once one comes to the conclusion that this government is not set-up to be a representative government of The People, but rather the corporate masters and their own criminal existence the torturous question of why they are not doing the right things becomes crystal clear
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1421 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 1:10:40 PM
In 1948, George Kennan wrote that "We have about 50% of the
world's wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
This passage (though the wealth statistic is no longer 50%) is a succinct expression of how American elites view their task in foreign policy. They're not interested in justice & equality for all mankind; they're interested in maximizing US dominance. They're not interested in the kind of peace that comes from justice; they're interested in the kind of peace that comes from crushing, intimidating, co-opting, or otherwise disabling resistance. // On the domestic front, they are similarly not interested in solving the population's real problems; they are interested merely in getting the population to go along with an elite agenda. Often this can be achieved simply by paying lip-service to the population's real needs & desires; or by keeping the populace confused about what the real agenda is.
The main difference between D's and R's is not in their goals -- as elite social forces, both share the above goals. The difference, as you state, is only over the most effective tactics to be used for achieving these goals. The D's are aware that sometimes softer rhetoric is more effective than harsh rhetoric. When a Republican scowls & says, "We intend to rule the world, and we'll kill anyone who gets in our way," he means pretty much the same thing as a Democrat who smiles & says, "We want to work together with our allies, to provide a more prosperous, safer future for all."
With regard to "Terrorism," there is zero interest in either party of "solving the problem." The only question is how best to exploit the issue -- which is largely a manufactured one -- to achieve the twin goals of US elites (ie, domination of resources abroad, while keeping the population under control at home). Both parties recognize that the terrorism issue has marvelous potential as a device for achieving these twin goals.
In fact, neither party wants terrorism to "go away." If terrorism didn't exist, both US parties would want to invent it, because it serves their needs so well. Both embrace the concept of the "War on Terror." Back in 1992, when the USSR had abruptly disintegrated, Washington elites were in a panic, desperate to find a new "enemy" that might serve their needs as admirably as the Russians had, for so many decades. Just as the Democrats cannot function without a Republican bogeyman to point to ("Madman McCain", etc), the US political system cannot function without an external "threat" or "enemy" to point to. Even if we had to create the enemy ourselves, it would be well worth doing so -- in effect, this is the view of US elites.
By trying to dominate the world, and denying foreign peoples their legitimate aspirations, and their right to enjoy the fruits of their own natural resources & labor, we prefer to make enemies -- because there's a much better payoff in it. Not only do we get to install puppet governments in resource-rich areas (which help us plunder those areas, for a cut of the action), we also make a nice batch of enemies. The enemies, in turn, can be inflated into full-fledged bogeymen, who are terrifically useful for achieving elites' policy goals. This is what American business culture likes to call a "win-win."
In the days following 9-11, as soon as Bush said, "They hate us for our freedoms," it was immensely revealing that no Democrat dared to publicly question the jaw-dropping dishonesty of that "analysis." (Susan Sontag challenged it, & was practically lynched for it.) No leading US politician of either party would be willing to examine "US conduct as a cause of global terrorism;" any who tried would get the Kucinich/Gravel/Paul treatment, or worse. The notion that the US is uniquely virtuous; that there is simply no legitimate reason anyone could possibly have for wanting to strike at the US -- this idea lies at the very core of the American "doctrinal system." Such notions are core elements of American ideology because they're exceptionally useful to American elites; no one can challenge such notions without provoking furious retaliation. (France's 1894 Dreyfus Affair was a good case study in what happens when core values of society's ruling elites are challenged. French power elites insisted ferociously for years that the issue had to be seen simply on the basis of the "principle" that the "honor" of the Army must not be impugned -- despite the fact that the Army High Command was knowingly lying.)
You ask, "...the fourth question on terrorism is how should the US respond?" I frankly think the US should call off the "War on Terror," & admit it's just a massive dishonest fraud. We should apologize for our crimes against humanity. The US should further acknowledge that the injustice of past US foreign policy played a large role in provoking the 9-11 attacks (assuming the attacks were indeed pulled off by Osama without US direct or indirect assistance). We should announce an intention to begin scaling down our military spending (by about 80% or so), and dismantling our 720+ overseas bases. We should publicly renounce attempted world domination as a goal of our foreign policy, seeking instead to make international cooperation the basis for our policy. // Of course, empires don't say things like that, & they don't allow their subjects to think things like that.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 1:15:14 PM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
