It’s Right There in the Name
Well ... first of all you can't fight and win a "war on terror." Terrorism is a method, not a country or ideology. I once heard it said that fighting a war on terror is like having the flu and declaring a war on sneezing: you're only attacking the symptoms. As long as there have been people, there has been terrorism.
- from Who Is the Enemy, by Omar Al-Rikabi at Sojourners
------------------------------
Congress and the American public must accept that the government cannot protect every possible target against attack if it wants to avoid fulfilling Al Qaeda’s goal of bankrupting the nation, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate committee Tuesday.
Osama bin Laden, Mr. Chertoff said, has made it clear that scaring the United States into an unsustainable spending spree is one of his aims. In a 2004 video, Mr. bin Laden, the Qaeda leader, spoke of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”
“He understood that one tool he had in waging war against the United States was to drive us crazy, into bankruptcy, trying to defend ourselves against every conceivable threat,” Mr. Chertoff said at a hearing of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “We have to be realistic about what we expect and what we do. We do have limits, and we do have choices to make.”
- from U.S. Can’t Protect All Targets, Chertoff Says, by Eric Lipton at The New York Times
------------------------------
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me the point of terrorism is to instill terror. It’s not to overthrow a government or even “win a war” in the traditional sense, but to make the enemy scared enough to change who they are. If that’s the measure, it seems to me Al Qaeda and company have scored some points. Every law passed that compromises our rights, everytime the airport lines get longer, every extra dollar we spend out of fear—-all the ways we have changed our lifestyles since 9/11—-is a success of terrorism.
------------------------------
from The Stranger in the Mirror
The New York Times
September 14, 2006
by Bob Herbert
[a TimesSelect article, so you’ll need to find it in an online database]
The invasion of Iraq marked the beginning of the change in the American character. During the Cuban missile crisis, when the hawks were hot for bombing -- or an invasion -- Robert Kennedy counseled against a U.S. first strike. That's not something the U.S. would do, he said.
Fast-forward 40 years or so and not only does the U.S. launch an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a small nation -- Iraq -- but it does so in response to an attack inside the U.S. that the small nation had nothing to do with.
Who are we?
Another example: There was a time, I thought, when there was general agreement among Americans that torture was beyond the pale. But when people are frightened enough, nothing is beyond the pale. And we're in an era in which the highest leaders in the land stoke -- rather than attempt to allay -- the fears of ordinary citizens. Islamic terrorists are equated with Nazi Germany. We're told that we're in a clash of civilizations.
If, as President Bush says, we're engaged in "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," why isn't the entire nation mobilizing to meet this dire threat?
The president put us on this path away from the better angels of our nature, and he has shown no inclination to turn back. Lately he has touted legislation to try terror suspects in a way that would make a mockery of the American ideals of justice and fairness. To get a sense of just how far out the administration's approach has been, consider the comments of Brig. Gen. James Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines. Speaking at a Congressional hearing last week, he said no civilized country denies defendants the right to see the evidence against them. The United States, he said, "should not be the first."
And Senator Lindsey Graham, a conservative South Carolina Republican who is a former military judge, said, "It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them."
How weird is it that this possibility could even be considered?
The character of the U.S. has changed. We're in danger of being completely ruled by fear. Most Americans have not shared the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very few Americans are aware, as the Center for Constitutional Rights tells us, that of the hundreds of men held by the U.S. in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, many "have never been charged and will never be charged because there is no evidence justifying their detention."
Even fewer care.
We could benefit from looking in a mirror, and absorbing the shock of not recognizing what we've become.
posted by Degolar @ 11:50 PM
4 Comments:
There is no such thing as terrorism. Terrorism is an idea born in the west as a tool for governments to subjugate their people under the guise of assault.
The fundamental problem with the war on terror is the fact that we think terrorists think of themselves as terrorists. Their purpose is not always to instill fear and chaos. This is especially true amongst Islamic extremists. In spite of popular American beliefs, many of these people really do think that they are acting righteously. Americans tend to believe that these people are using religion as an exploitation method, but this isn't always true. Many believe that the Muslim way is the only way, and that it is their duty to physically make everyone else follow that ideology. They want to return to the golden age of Islam, and they believe that this can only be accomplished when the infidelity of the rest of the world is destroyed.
Just look at the Christian right in America - they are doing the exact same thing as Osama Bin-Laden. They aren't using such overtly violent methods, but it is still their way or the highway.
Al-Qaeda isn't attacking us with the hopes that we will pass laws that limit our rights. That is a byproduct brought on by a presidential regime that continues to successfully exploit the ignorant fears of the American people.
The title of the late Hunter S. Thompson's 2003 book perfectly and succinctly sums up our current America: "Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century." We are living in the Kingdom of Fear, and the American Century has truly come and gone.
Ok, now my posts are fluff by comparison! : )
But at the same time they are not trying to fight this "war" in the traditional manner. They are not bombing us with jets or rolling tanks across our borders because they don't have the strength of arms to fight us in that way; they can't eliminate all non-Islamic Westerners nor conquer our countries (any time soon, anyway). Their tactics are different out of necessity, and the goals change to go with that. What exactly can they hope to accomplish through suicide bombings and picking away at "us" other than destabilization? They want to impact the way we live and, ultimately, think. The problem isn't that we are protecting ourselves, putting more time, energy, and money into the "war." It's that we are letting their actions frame the way we are thinking and control our actions so that we betray what should be our core values.
It's interesting that after writing this I came upon a lengthy consideration of some of the same issues from the more conservative perspective of the Annoyed Librarian.
And I'll try to post something fluffy for you soon, Girl in Black, I was just catching up on my news emails (while in class) last night and these pieces got me thinking. It's nice to get the response from Gobula and have a conversation about it, though.
It's called asymetrical warfare. They don't have the means to fight us conventionally, so they do so unconventionally. But I would say that their intent is not to bleed us financially, but to score political points on their homeground. Remember, as Clausewitz said "War is politics by other means", and terrorism certainly is. By striking against an external enemy the terrorists want to gain power against their domestic enemies by gaining support amongst the disaffected. Ideally their actions will provoke a disproportional response which will lead to ever greater prestige for them in the Muslim world. Of course, we wouldn't be stupid enough to give them that kind of gift.... oh, wait, never mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home