Thanks for throwing me the softball there, xenophon41. I fully realize that what I’m saying is extremely controversial and even more distasteful.
As far as our different interpretations of history go, I really don’t think they’re too far apart. As I said, compromise is part of the solution, but not until the defeated party admits defeat, or at least admits that the defeat of the other party is no longer a national goal. Only then can two aggreived nations move on, because otherwise they’re just fighting on smaller battlefields with the same real blood.
With regard to the specific situation in Palestine, it’s gone on far too long for a modestly honorable, equitable, and quick solution like that which the South enjoyed. So what do you do? Pick one? That’s the cheapest way, but probably not the best.
We (America and those nations which agree with us) have to make it clear that we will win against terrorism, either by peaceable means or by an application of the same theory on a level those who support terrorism can’t possibly hope to match. Those are the only two options, although I’ll agree with msmith537 and say they can be combined. The problem is that one option gives encouragement to the practice of terrorism while the other prevents it, and it will be outrageously expensive–and still quite tragic–if we choose to pursue both paths at the same time. Tragic, unless we can somehow find another way, one which I cannot envision. That doesn’t mean I don’t hope someone else can.
And as I said, as soon as there is any real danger to the first world, the enemy will be utterly defeated by means of violence and subjugation, because when your kids are on the line like theirs are, you’re not going to care what happens to them anymore.
SK – I don’t mean to be presumptuous but let me assume for a moment you’re having a little trouble with the idea that tempering US Foreign Policy is in some way acceding to terrorist wishes and that must not under any circumstances be entertained – that’s perfectly reasonable, IMHO.
However, let me try an alternative view on you. Lets not characterise this as a ‘war against terrorism’ at all. How about thinking of it in this way: The real war took place in the period 1945-1980 when the US was not only fighting Communism but was striving for a kind of world economic domination – the modern, capitalist, equivalent of olde military-led Imperialistic domination. It won that war. It is the worlds leading economic and military power by some distance. Now it has to win the peace, and part of winning that peace requires that the US deal with some of its previous international excesses.
FWIW, the biggest issue here, I believe, is that the US cannot win that peace whilst it’s Foreign Policy is unduly influenced by corporate funded political leaders - there cannot be a moral, ethical or whatever the people of the US want, Foreign Policy if who, or whatever, they vote for comes a distant second to the naked greed of vested interests. And it is naive, IMHO, to think the national interest (to, for example further the national economy) always has a common interest with the stockholding interest of a few international conglomerates.
I think it’s also worth reminding ourselves of the goals of al-Quada as repeatedly espoused by OBL:
A Palestinian State (note the Bush speech of 24th June re a ‘provisional’ Palestinian State)
US forces out of Saudi (note the welcoming of Russia - and Caspian oil - into the international community. NATO, G8, etc)
Ending trade sanctions against Iraq. (note there is no mention of Saddam staying in power)
That’s it. World domination it ain’t. And, IMHO, Bush is responding (in whatever spun form suits).
London, you are certainly more reasonable than I am about this. I’d like to point out again that I don’t want to see things go where I think they might go. But I don’t want to see them go your way, either, if I understand you correctly.
What al-Qaeda did by knocking America about was to place a discernable spike between what was once a set of reasonable demands and what is now an unretractable policy. Because if America does want to accede to al-Q’s demands, no matter how simple and reasonable they might have been, we can’t do it because of the means by which al-Q attempted to “negotiate.”
Rewarding a reprehensible act is tantamount to condoning it. It will happen again if they are allowed to succeed. This is a basic premise, and while I don’t doubt that the vagaries of politics can water it down somewhat, there will be open and vocal dissent by the public and by my President’s own administration if such a position is abandoned.
So everyone has to suffer when compromise might otherwise have been achieved. I’ve never read a coherent policy statement on this teacup tempest, but if I had to guess, my bet would be that America’s strategic goals are now:
Give enough slack to the idea of a Palestinian state in order to continue to deny such a reality to them so long as they continue in their current ways. We can count on these guys to fuck up whatever autonomy they are given, and now we’re gonna threaten to step into the middle of it and steal their milk money, too. HAMAS will blow up another market, America will make a show of disgust and admit that they are aiding the Israelis, and the Palestinians will be pushed farther back under the rock.
US forces remain in Saudi, and furthermore, perpetrate an even greater penetration into their economic and political autonomy in order to ensure their oppressive regime remains in our sphere of influence. Should that sphere of influence collapse, Saudi Arabia is the absolute easiest country in the world to control. I’ll explain that further if I have to, but I hope the obvious examples of the Gulf War suffice. When you own the desert, you own Saudi.
Finding any excuse whatsoever to topple the government of Saddam Hussein, up to and including open discussion of a worthless, unnecessary war. Right now there is only a declassified Executive Order between that guy and a .50 cal rifle bullet. We’re not doing it now because we don’t have anyone who can credibly take his place, despite a decade of trying. When we do, they’re screwed.
Like I said before, I don’t like this hand-puppet of a President, but someone instructed him long ago that you can’t weasel out of this mess without sneaking into the chicken roost first, and everything I’ve heard him try to say seems to jive with the diametrically opposed position from that which al-Q wants.
Whatever they wanted, they’re not getting, at least in the short term. America has never been shy about such things. I recommend Mark Bowden’s Killing Pablo as an example of exactly how intrusive and compelling America can be against any nation which demonstrates an inability to control itself and thus harm us.
Great post “London Calling”. And “Sofa King”? Kudos for staying nice and calm even when some of your posts have been brought under scrutiny.
I first posted in this thread a fair few weeks ago, and then I walked away to see how things would turn out. I gotta say, some really intelligent and well informed people have posted here and I’ve learnt so much - thanks everyone!
After all this time I now have an observation regarding the question posed by the original thread.
Namely - there seem to be 2 separate and equally valid initial reactions to the very ‘concept’ of terrorism - especially when it’s looked upon in the context of September 11. Firstly, there is the “emotional response” - which quite understandably revolves around something as basic and instinctive as “just kill the fuckers” and who can blame anyone for such a response? It’s totally human and normal. Then there’s the 2nd more ‘cerebral’ and restrained response - which basically recognises that trying to ‘defeat terrorism’ is a bit like killing a cockroach - the moment you squash one, another 20 pop up in it’s place.
So… in the absence of some blinding despatch from the Halls of Divinity itself, all I can say is this… “London Calling” made a very insightful point - whether we (here in the West) are prepared to admit it or not, all of us collectively are guilty of something - and we HAVE BEEN guilty of this for a pretty long time now. Namely, letting Corporate Self Interest insert any company name you want here influencing major political decisions which, if fairness and human interests alone were the sole factor, most likely would have resulted in a LOT of different decisions taking place in the past.
And you see guys, whether we like it or not, an awful lot of the nasty shit which is happening in the world NOW is actually the PAST catching up with us in reality.
I, for one, reckon we could learn more than a little bit from the recent past and change a few things about how we, in the Western World, currently do business. It’s not gonna hurt at the very least. We have to start making future decisions based on “wanting to seen to be clean at all costs”.
As was pointed out, a terrorist network like OBL’s CANNOT exist and flourish without the active support of:
-banks and money-transfer agents
-front companies (think of OBL’s construction firms)
-“pariah” states like Libya and Syria, who furnish safe houses for these monsters to hide in
What has to be done:
-shut down all the conduits for money, which finance the terrorist organixations
-make it so uncomfortable for the host countries, that they will boot out the terrorists. This may involve the loss of innocent life, bit it can be done. Finally, it must be made clear to saudi arabia (and other such nations) that support in any way for OBL will not be tolerated…no more visas for the Saudi elite, for example.
There’s not only a difference between “demands” and “aims” of a terrorist organization, there’s a big disconnect between those and the political goals of the affected nations. The mere correspondence of some of a terrorist organization’s goals to some of the political options available to target nations neither invalidates those options nor makes them politically untenable.
In fact, the major goal of al Qaeda is the removal of Western influence from Arab societies, particularly the expulsion of US influence. That, of course, will not be accomplished, and any diplomatic or political processes which work to our advantage even if they correspond to certain al Q demands must not be removed from consideration. That would be foolish.
What is important is to retain our influence and work toward mutually beneficial global agreements and arrangements. Some of these may indeed gibe with terrorist demands, but in the end improvements in social conditions (including political autonomy and freedom from indignities of occupation) in troubled areas will only reduce the attraction and influence of terror organizations.
I think about education as a response to terrorism, and I think it makes sense as a long-term solution.
In the short-term it’s more problematic. The terrorism the US is facing now is in large part due to the perceived exportation of American culture and technology.
Our educational values and systems are a part of that. Simply stepping up our exportation efforts may do more than good in the short term.
Better education may help young three year old Sahib to grow up to be a rational and peaceful person, but it really doesn’t do much for Sahib Sr. who is around right now, pissed, and angry, and can be a threat for the next thirty plus years.
I’m not really content to endure another 30-40 years of terrorism and hate to solve the problem.
A lot of people will die in that timespan. There’s a good chance we’ll have a nuclear terror attack if it goes on that long.
Ultimately, I think that’s not the most peacerful solution.
What we need to do is what we’re doing. We’re using the “1 ton horse solution.”
If you want to get a 1 ton horse on a trailer that he doesn’t want to get into, there’s not really much you can do to manually force him. He’s bigger and stronger than you and all your friends put together. You can’t make him get on.
No matter how badly you want that horse on the trailer and no matter what you and all your friends do, it’s the horse itself that must finally decide to get on the trailer.
So, if you want the horse on, trying to physically force it is innefective. You need to address the root of the problem, and get him to decide to get on.
What you do is very simple:
You beat one end, and you feed the other.
You need to do both. One won’t ever cut it, and will ultimately do more harm than good. And, you need to be consistent. Keep leading the horse to the trailer, offering it food as it comes forward. When it backs up, balks, or stops, beat its ass.
If you do this consistently and from square one, you will have even the most stubborn horse on the trailer in short order.
Do it inconsistently and you’ll be there all day.
There are of course two other solutions:
Kill the horse
Don’t put it on the trailer
If we look at terrorism in the same way, that we look at getting the horse on the trailer, we’ll see that there’s only really one way that’s going to guarrantee results in the shortest order with the least pain and death.
We have to be absolutely and irrevocably merciless in our treatment of terrorisists and terrorist related activites, training camps, leaders, etc.
We must be unfailingly caring and generous in our treatment of the societies from which terrorists are spawned. Education, incentives, aid, exchange workers.
Excellent summary statement, Scylla (those last two paragraphs). If we can remember that the object isn’t to beat the horse to death, we can get it up on the trailer. If we can separate the terrorists from the societies they come from, we can destroy the parasites without maiming the host.
How do you successfully counter and defend against asymmetrical “warfare” like the terrorism we saw in Oklahoma City or 9/11?
How do you win ANY war without sowing the seeds for future discord?
Frankly, number 1 baffles me. There will always be people on the ideological fringe of London’s bell curve, and modern society and technology makes the destructive power of small groups quite devastating.
Number 2 has a few more historical precedents, though I am not sure how they apply here given the asymmetry. Step 1 is “Win the freaking war!” Even with Lincoln’s intended idea of “Malice toward none and charity toward all.”, he wanted the army to do what it took to win. Similarly with the city bombings in WWII.
Step 2 is “Be as committed to the fairness of the post-war peace as you were to winning the war.” Punish those responsible for atrocities, but treat the rest with dignity and respect. More Marshall Plan and less Treaty of Versailles.
I know that I am brushing over a lot of subtleties, such as whether bombing Dresden really helped the war effort or whether it was more a fear of Russia than the money that kept West Germany friendly. But I think the general idea is right.
In going after Al-Qaeda, we are going to piss off a lot of people either by mistake (the wedding bombing) or as a consequence of necessary actions. But it is important to defeat/disband/destroy this group and OBL. We also need to be committed to the peace process. That includes helping Afghanistan rebuild. Trying to show more respect for Islamic culture. Reaching out to moderates who see it is better to have the U.S. as a friend than an enemy.
(Arrrghh. In real life, I am one of the smarter people I know. But then I come on this list, spend a half hour crafting a response only to find that Scylly summed it up better and more interestingly than I did.)
Curious about one thing, how does terrorism seem to be affected by unemployment? I mean it seems like pretty much all the people involved with 9/11 were just a bunch of useless unemployed college students. I’ve actually wondered if a good thing to do in Afghanistan would be to train some of men in the refugee camps in construction techniques and then pay them to do work rebuilding the place.(IE the U.S. would do the training and paying.) I was thinking along the lines that it would have the following advantages
They’d probably be cheaper than anybody else we could get
They’d bring the money we paid them into the Afghan economy.(Which would hopefully help employ other Afghani’s)
It’d keep them busy so hopefully no time to become a useless scumbag
They could build stuff that would fit in with their culture.(No imposing of western culture this way.)
I’m sure there’s probably a load of reasons why we haven’t done this already though.
SF – Firstly, thanks for being reasonable about a topic which can soon become (understandably) emotionally driven rather than rationally debated. FWIW, the idea, for me, is to try and remain resolution based. To that end I think there are clear indications that the Bush Administration has (now) sectioned off the singular event of 9/11 in the general thrust of its policy goals.
That isn’t to say the US should not, or is not, continuing to pursue the perpetrators, simply that there is emerging a dichotomy between doing that (for the legitimate reasons of justice/revenge, re-election, future security, etc) and addressing the broader canvass in a pragmatic manner – and doing that despite the tone of his for-domestic-consumption, emotionally based rhetoric. Real Politik is the game in hand.
To take the a-Q issue for a moment and before moving on to the wider issues:
Sure, Bush should continue to go after this asymmetric, cell and sleeper based terrorist organisation as best his Agencies can - and good bloody luck to them because it’s some job. Lets remind ourselves that 10 months down the road, the US can’t find two long-term residents of Afghanistan (OBL and Omah) despite bringing every power it possesses to that purpose. Nor can it trace any money, or weaponry supply, or US based sleepers. It has, in a bombing attack, taken out one a-Q leader. This is, IMHO, a long-term and immensely difficult task.
In support of the supposed general ‘war on terrorism’ (sic), some in this thread propose a form of terror/fear campaign against the societies that support a-Q. That is plainly absurd for any number of reasons but I’ll refer you to Xeno’s earlier post. I know you, as a student of military history, understand the futility, the redundancy, of that policy, as did my Grandparents 61 years ago this month.
In addition, Bush was fortunate in Afghanistan in as far as there was a pre-existing militia he could buy, supply, support from the air and a third –rate, ill-equipped opposition that folded (the Taliban). That isn’t the case elsewhere. Afghanistan is no precedent.
Onto the wider, pragmatic agenda:
I don’t believe you condone or reward a-Q by pursuing them to the ends of the earth. You take revenge and demonstrate that terrorism is illegitimate and unacceptable. However, you will not eradicate dissent by eradicating a-Q because the three primary demands of a-Q are consistent with those of the wider Islamic society (same views, more extreme approach – the bell curve again). And, to be perfectly frank, those demands are not viewed by most of the world as unreasonable.
Take for example America’s firmest supporter, Tony Blair:
A Palestinian State (Blair is a firm advocate)
US forces in Saudi (no official view beyond it’s a matter for the parties concerned)
Ending sanctions against Iraq (very considerable reservations but continues, under pressure, to offer token support)
And that’s the most ardent support you’ll find outside the US. Is Blair condoning or rewarding the terrorism that killed UK citizens on 9/11, Is the rest of the world by having an even greater sympathy with those objectives ?
Bush will likely try to get what he needs (in re-election terms) from Saddam, but, IMHO, for peace and domestic security he will have to recognise and respond to perceived social injustices as perpetrated on Muslims and as believed by the majority of Islamic society.
My interpretation of an example of what I perceive to be the post-9/11 real politik:
The Palestinians are to be offered a “provisional state” contingent upon a change of leadership, the instigation of sweeping reforms and a cessation of violence.
Israel’s defence minister has said he wants to uproot 20 illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
30th June – Most recent attack (and not a suicide attack) – possibly a ‘rogue’ group Arafat didn’t yet get to.
Skipping a few moves in the game but noting Arafat’s de facto Foreign Minister repeatedly states the PA will accept the border of 4th June 1967 as the basis for negotiation (implying acceptance of the right to exist of the State of Israel) until… 8th July
In Jerusalem, Israelis and Palestinians held their first high-level contact for several months on Monday. Breaking the ice
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and newly-appointed Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayed met in Jerusalem late on Monday, to discuss economic issues including an international project to collect funds for the Palestinians.
On Tuesday Mr Peres met another Palestinian official to emerge from Yasser Arafat’s recent shake-up of his administration, Interior Minister General Abdel Razaq al-Yahiya. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has set about purging and re-organising his security apparatus in response to US and Israeli demands."
IMHO, what we’re witnessing is a carefully and (pre-planned) diplomatic choreography in which the key element (with one or two others) is an enormous pressure on Arafat to demonstrate he can maintain control prior to a Bush-led Mid East conference/initiative. If Arafat does go, it makes the future far more palatable.
Progress here is very important indeed as it would make a huge difference (in terms of Islamic reaction) for the proposed Desert Storm Part Two in January next.
But this is but one element in what might be seen to be the war to shift the Arab mind set (the bell curve of that society) away from that which (now) fosters support for middle class extremism.
That is the real world, IMHO.
sorry if that reads poorly. I was rushed at the end…
And I didn’t mention the Bush policy re the Midle East of 'let ‘em get on with it’ as espoused last year. Hey ho.
I didn’t know how to respond to this but then the soft-focus ending kicked in.
FWIW, I doubt here is a more politically aware society in the world than Pakistan (I mention Pakistan as the wider society has much sympathy with extremist political agenda). In my somewhat dated experience, half the 14 year-old boys mending $5 push bikes in the back streets of Islamabad can tell us about the US- led IMF/World Bank loans, the crippling level of taxation, the how, what, where’s…
Alternatively, there are the views of Nobel prize winning, former Chief Economic Advisor to the President and former World Bank Chief Economist, Joe Stiglitz. An example of how neo-colonialism works:
I’d invite you to take a look. Actually, both are good reads, IMHO.