Fighting Terrorism
The Real Way to Fight Terrorism
June 4, 2006
In a recent speech before a graduating class, President Bush spoke in terms of fighting terrorism by bringing about democracy in the middle eastern nations. Apparently, one such method is to invade a middle eastern nation (Iraq) and impose democracy on it by force. So far this is not working well in terms of a peaceful transition. However, I am sure that most people in Iraq, although pretty sore at the United States for our arrogance, just want to be able to carry on their lives in peace. And I am pretty sure that these same people, if given the choice, would want to carry on their lives in the framework of a benign government.
So I suppose that it is fair to assert that I agree with President Bush about the ideal of removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq’s leader. But the devil is in the details, as the saying goes, and that is where Bush and I diverge in our opinions. He apparently believes that the end justifies the means. I disagree. The trouble is, he is in the driver’s seat, and I am not.
As to the details, how can we impose democracy on others when we do not really live in a democracy in the United States? Certainly, we have a form of government that we represent to be democratic, and our processes are more democratic than were those in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (although there were elections in Iraq, too). Saddam could call his country’s government democratic, and we can call ours democratic, too. Most of us believe that Saddam’s government was more like a dictatorship, but most of us believe that our government is democratic.
On the other hand, is the government of the United States really democratic, when we essentially lock ourselves into having a two political party system; and when those two parties easily can determine who gets to run for office by putting a lot of money into certain favored campaigns, leaving the rest to dwindle; and when any one individual’s opinion carries little weight unless it conforms with the opinion of some sort of political action committee, and then that opinion generally only matters proportional with the size of the monetary contribution to that committee (which means that only the rich have opinions that count); and when anyone’s opinion does not matter as much as those of the big money donors who can hire expensive lobbyists who have such access to senators and representatives that they are invited to write new laws that come up for a vote; and when these same lobbyists are allowed to take lawmakers and judges to expensive resorts, which allows for plenty of opportunity to influence them; and when the lion’s share of big money donors are large corporations that only act in their own best interests and not for the greater good; and when one party is capable of gaining control of all three arms of the government so that debate of the issues becomes ineffectual at best; and when party leaders have the capability of stripping committee chairs of their positions when the latter disagree with the party line which is set by the leaders; and when voting machines are set up with no way to verify a vote count in highly contested elections; and when the president is able to modify laws that he/she signs by interpreting the Constitution in any way desired without any oversight from any other branch of our government; and when the Executive Branch is able to operate largely behind closed doors hidden behind the guise of “national security”; and when elections themselves are so expensive that they limit grassroots efforts to attain office based on the issues alone; and when states have the ability to manipulate voter lists to limit who gets to vote based upon flawed information (or incompetence) and get away with it in the end? Really, even our electoral college is debatable despite being well-intentioned, because it imposes another barrier between the individual voter and the election.
The things I have just brought up with regard to the United States’ issues related to democracy fall into two categories: 1) the structure of the government, which is actually more or less set up in the form of a republic biased in favor of the wealthy; and 2) the corruption that this structure enables. Most of the factors I described above have to do with the latter, but our government’s structure easily allows for the type of corruption that exists today.
In this context, we find ourselves having to fight terrorism. An act of terrorism is pretty tangible, but what broadly constitutes terrorism is more complex. A cause is central to terrorism. Terrorists generally are renegades who take the law in their own hands. They think illogically, apparently believing they can change the minds of others to come around to their way of thinking by invoking negative reinforcement of the terrorists’ views: if I blow up some of your loved ones or neighbors, surely you will embrace my dark philosophy. Their cause overrides their consciences (assuming they were ever able to feel guilt), for they define anyone who does not believe what the terrorists believe is the enemy that must be wiped out. This is as opposed to the organized armies of sovereign states, who (when things work right) try to tell the difference between combatants and ordinary citizens and attempt to leave the latter alone. Also, there are those among us who are either sociopaths or are simply mean-spirited and have problems with anger management no matter what. How many of the present-day terrorists are like that? This appears to be a little-publicized area, but personality type logically would be important in shaping a potential terrorist. This is particularly true with regard to the leadership. Leaders must be charismatic or very persuasive or preferably both, and there must be followers who are passive thinkers but passionate about the cause so much that they would allow themselves to do unconscionable things at the bidding of the leaders. Keep in mind, it is not any one of these factors that makes for terrorism, but all of them.
When you get down to it, superficially an army of terrorists does not sound so different from the army of a sovereign state. In the U.S. Army, are the leaders charismatic (command respect)? Are they persuasive? Are the privates passionate about their cause (freedom)? Is anger management a problem in the Army (no doubt it is)? Only at a deeper level are the differences apparent. Terrorists operate outside of laws that, at least in a democracy, are fashioned by ordinary people so that ordinary people have many freedoms. Terrorists are delusional that they can persuade by negativity, as illustrated above. Terrorists would leave you with no choice but to do their bidding without rebuttal. Basically, Islamic militant terrorists, for instance, might fix it so that Comedy Central goes off the air, so that I no longer have the choice regarding watching it or not. The U.S. Army is supposed to be fighting so that I continue to have that choice. Let me clarify this. I consider my right to watch Comedy Central as highly symbolic of the depth of freedom of choice that the United States allows, while an Islamic Fundamentalist government would probably not allow much choice but to participate in whatever highly restricted content they would offer the public. This is not to deny that in the United States that some groups are pushing to restrict the content we are allowed to see. Indeed, the current administration appears to want to do that as well as rewrite history and engage in pseudoscience to discredit valid scientific findings. But the problem in our country is miniscule compared with the dictatorial nature of Islamic Fundamentalis governments.
So far, terrorists have not succeeded in wiping out whole continents of people in order to leave only the terrorists to live, rule, and reproduce. They have only done highly symbolic things that basically have interrupted commerce and solidified the determination of those of us who oppose them. However, they have also brought out in the open some glaring deficiencies in the deportment of the United States.
So what is the real way to fight terrorism? The biggest way is to be true to ourselves. Get rid of the insidious corruption in our governmental processes. Then we would have a basis for earning the respect of other legitimate nations. Then we could serve as a true role model for others.
A concurrent priority needs to be shoring up our own defenses. Secure our borders. Inspect all shipping crates. Increase domestic surveillance within (not questionably within or definitely outside) the boundaries of the law. Classify potential explosives as controlled substances, if necessary. Create an airtight system of personal identities. Revamp anti-terrorism security nationwide. And stop being dependent on foreign oil, the only major trump card of unstable nations other than nuclear weaponry.
Third, we need to be a friend, not a bully. This does not mean compromising our principles. We can state our principles loud and clear anytime, and as long as we are true to ourselves, our principles will shine as legitimate. If we are a friend, then we are much more likely to build solid relationships with our peer nations and get the mutual cooperation we need, based upon trust.
Fourth, we need to communicate with rogue states rather than refusing to do so. How many times have you failed to communicate, which resulted in misunderstandings that caused things to go wrong? How many times have you chosen to talk about a difficult issue with others only to find that things were not quite the way they seemed and everyone was better off because of talking the situation out? We would probably not be able to avoid military confrontations every time by dialogue, but we would no doubt be a lot better off trying and failing than not trying at all.
Fifth, we need to eliminate the policy of pre-emptive strikes against nations. The most glaring example pointing to the reason for curtailing this policy, of course, is Iraq. Do you realize that the United States unilaterally decided to invade Iraq (along with a few nations the U.S. persuaded to go along with the idea) against the collective wisdom of the United Nations? The U.N. sent weapons inspectors to Iraq that said there were no weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors were correct. The U.N. found no reason for a second Iraq invasion based upon allegations of aggression, and yet the U.S. did what the Bush Administration wanted to do anyway, and it was based upon no legitimate reason that would hold up under international law. Doing so has not helped our international standing in fighting terrorism at all. When we attack another nation based upon a questionable agenda that is supported by erroneous data, and when most other nations see this clearly at least in hindsight if not ahead of time, how is the international community going to react when we come back later asserting the next premise? Instead, I get the feeling that many other nations are ambivalently waiting around for us to get our come-uppance. Worse, we have spent close to a trillion dollars on a pre-emptive strike when none was due, instead of shoring up our domestic defenses. Do you not realize the glaring twisted priorities that these facts reveal?
Finally, we need to work aggressively towards nuclear disarmament. Who thinks we are going to defend our nation successfully by blanket bombing some attacker, the result of which could likely make the earth largely uninhabitable? Of course, we cannot unilaterally disarm. The nuclear standoff had its purpose at one time, and that probably remains true today, to a degree. But a true, interim verifiable system of an identifiable, equal, limited number of nuclear weapons in the hands of only clearly-defined major superpowers that agree to work on final elimination, after a period of demonstrated mutual trust, would be a very good first step. This would have to be coupled with a system that ensures that others cannot develop such capabilities undetected, but we just about have that system now. There are many reasons for disarmament, but there is no reason more important than to remove the threat of annihilation from those of us who simply want to live our lives, go to work, enjoy our loved ones, and do the rest of things that constitute ordinary living. Do you think nuclear war would enable us to continue with our lives as we know them today? Hardly.
The sum total of all of these things is a big order to fill. We are also far away from doing so. Nonetheless, distance is no reason to keep us from deciding to make the necessary changes to get us back on track. And the end result would likely be this: it is extremely unlikely that any terrorist can stand up to a nation that is a friend, that communicates, that is not an aggressor, that has strong internal defenses, and that remains true to itself.
© 2006, srman07
June 4, 2006
In a recent speech before a graduating class, President Bush spoke in terms of fighting terrorism by bringing about democracy in the middle eastern nations. Apparently, one such method is to invade a middle eastern nation (Iraq) and impose democracy on it by force. So far this is not working well in terms of a peaceful transition. However, I am sure that most people in Iraq, although pretty sore at the United States for our arrogance, just want to be able to carry on their lives in peace. And I am pretty sure that these same people, if given the choice, would want to carry on their lives in the framework of a benign government.
So I suppose that it is fair to assert that I agree with President Bush about the ideal of removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq’s leader. But the devil is in the details, as the saying goes, and that is where Bush and I diverge in our opinions. He apparently believes that the end justifies the means. I disagree. The trouble is, he is in the driver’s seat, and I am not.
As to the details, how can we impose democracy on others when we do not really live in a democracy in the United States? Certainly, we have a form of government that we represent to be democratic, and our processes are more democratic than were those in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (although there were elections in Iraq, too). Saddam could call his country’s government democratic, and we can call ours democratic, too. Most of us believe that Saddam’s government was more like a dictatorship, but most of us believe that our government is democratic.
On the other hand, is the government of the United States really democratic, when we essentially lock ourselves into having a two political party system; and when those two parties easily can determine who gets to run for office by putting a lot of money into certain favored campaigns, leaving the rest to dwindle; and when any one individual’s opinion carries little weight unless it conforms with the opinion of some sort of political action committee, and then that opinion generally only matters proportional with the size of the monetary contribution to that committee (which means that only the rich have opinions that count); and when anyone’s opinion does not matter as much as those of the big money donors who can hire expensive lobbyists who have such access to senators and representatives that they are invited to write new laws that come up for a vote; and when these same lobbyists are allowed to take lawmakers and judges to expensive resorts, which allows for plenty of opportunity to influence them; and when the lion’s share of big money donors are large corporations that only act in their own best interests and not for the greater good; and when one party is capable of gaining control of all three arms of the government so that debate of the issues becomes ineffectual at best; and when party leaders have the capability of stripping committee chairs of their positions when the latter disagree with the party line which is set by the leaders; and when voting machines are set up with no way to verify a vote count in highly contested elections; and when the president is able to modify laws that he/she signs by interpreting the Constitution in any way desired without any oversight from any other branch of our government; and when the Executive Branch is able to operate largely behind closed doors hidden behind the guise of “national security”; and when elections themselves are so expensive that they limit grassroots efforts to attain office based on the issues alone; and when states have the ability to manipulate voter lists to limit who gets to vote based upon flawed information (or incompetence) and get away with it in the end? Really, even our electoral college is debatable despite being well-intentioned, because it imposes another barrier between the individual voter and the election.
The things I have just brought up with regard to the United States’ issues related to democracy fall into two categories: 1) the structure of the government, which is actually more or less set up in the form of a republic biased in favor of the wealthy; and 2) the corruption that this structure enables. Most of the factors I described above have to do with the latter, but our government’s structure easily allows for the type of corruption that exists today.
In this context, we find ourselves having to fight terrorism. An act of terrorism is pretty tangible, but what broadly constitutes terrorism is more complex. A cause is central to terrorism. Terrorists generally are renegades who take the law in their own hands. They think illogically, apparently believing they can change the minds of others to come around to their way of thinking by invoking negative reinforcement of the terrorists’ views: if I blow up some of your loved ones or neighbors, surely you will embrace my dark philosophy. Their cause overrides their consciences (assuming they were ever able to feel guilt), for they define anyone who does not believe what the terrorists believe is the enemy that must be wiped out. This is as opposed to the organized armies of sovereign states, who (when things work right) try to tell the difference between combatants and ordinary citizens and attempt to leave the latter alone. Also, there are those among us who are either sociopaths or are simply mean-spirited and have problems with anger management no matter what. How many of the present-day terrorists are like that? This appears to be a little-publicized area, but personality type logically would be important in shaping a potential terrorist. This is particularly true with regard to the leadership. Leaders must be charismatic or very persuasive or preferably both, and there must be followers who are passive thinkers but passionate about the cause so much that they would allow themselves to do unconscionable things at the bidding of the leaders. Keep in mind, it is not any one of these factors that makes for terrorism, but all of them.
When you get down to it, superficially an army of terrorists does not sound so different from the army of a sovereign state. In the U.S. Army, are the leaders charismatic (command respect)? Are they persuasive? Are the privates passionate about their cause (freedom)? Is anger management a problem in the Army (no doubt it is)? Only at a deeper level are the differences apparent. Terrorists operate outside of laws that, at least in a democracy, are fashioned by ordinary people so that ordinary people have many freedoms. Terrorists are delusional that they can persuade by negativity, as illustrated above. Terrorists would leave you with no choice but to do their bidding without rebuttal. Basically, Islamic militant terrorists, for instance, might fix it so that Comedy Central goes off the air, so that I no longer have the choice regarding watching it or not. The U.S. Army is supposed to be fighting so that I continue to have that choice. Let me clarify this. I consider my right to watch Comedy Central as highly symbolic of the depth of freedom of choice that the United States allows, while an Islamic Fundamentalist government would probably not allow much choice but to participate in whatever highly restricted content they would offer the public. This is not to deny that in the United States that some groups are pushing to restrict the content we are allowed to see. Indeed, the current administration appears to want to do that as well as rewrite history and engage in pseudoscience to discredit valid scientific findings. But the problem in our country is miniscule compared with the dictatorial nature of Islamic Fundamentalis governments.
So far, terrorists have not succeeded in wiping out whole continents of people in order to leave only the terrorists to live, rule, and reproduce. They have only done highly symbolic things that basically have interrupted commerce and solidified the determination of those of us who oppose them. However, they have also brought out in the open some glaring deficiencies in the deportment of the United States.
So what is the real way to fight terrorism? The biggest way is to be true to ourselves. Get rid of the insidious corruption in our governmental processes. Then we would have a basis for earning the respect of other legitimate nations. Then we could serve as a true role model for others.
A concurrent priority needs to be shoring up our own defenses. Secure our borders. Inspect all shipping crates. Increase domestic surveillance within (not questionably within or definitely outside) the boundaries of the law. Classify potential explosives as controlled substances, if necessary. Create an airtight system of personal identities. Revamp anti-terrorism security nationwide. And stop being dependent on foreign oil, the only major trump card of unstable nations other than nuclear weaponry.
Third, we need to be a friend, not a bully. This does not mean compromising our principles. We can state our principles loud and clear anytime, and as long as we are true to ourselves, our principles will shine as legitimate. If we are a friend, then we are much more likely to build solid relationships with our peer nations and get the mutual cooperation we need, based upon trust.
Fourth, we need to communicate with rogue states rather than refusing to do so. How many times have you failed to communicate, which resulted in misunderstandings that caused things to go wrong? How many times have you chosen to talk about a difficult issue with others only to find that things were not quite the way they seemed and everyone was better off because of talking the situation out? We would probably not be able to avoid military confrontations every time by dialogue, but we would no doubt be a lot better off trying and failing than not trying at all.
Fifth, we need to eliminate the policy of pre-emptive strikes against nations. The most glaring example pointing to the reason for curtailing this policy, of course, is Iraq. Do you realize that the United States unilaterally decided to invade Iraq (along with a few nations the U.S. persuaded to go along with the idea) against the collective wisdom of the United Nations? The U.N. sent weapons inspectors to Iraq that said there were no weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors were correct. The U.N. found no reason for a second Iraq invasion based upon allegations of aggression, and yet the U.S. did what the Bush Administration wanted to do anyway, and it was based upon no legitimate reason that would hold up under international law. Doing so has not helped our international standing in fighting terrorism at all. When we attack another nation based upon a questionable agenda that is supported by erroneous data, and when most other nations see this clearly at least in hindsight if not ahead of time, how is the international community going to react when we come back later asserting the next premise? Instead, I get the feeling that many other nations are ambivalently waiting around for us to get our come-uppance. Worse, we have spent close to a trillion dollars on a pre-emptive strike when none was due, instead of shoring up our domestic defenses. Do you not realize the glaring twisted priorities that these facts reveal?
Finally, we need to work aggressively towards nuclear disarmament. Who thinks we are going to defend our nation successfully by blanket bombing some attacker, the result of which could likely make the earth largely uninhabitable? Of course, we cannot unilaterally disarm. The nuclear standoff had its purpose at one time, and that probably remains true today, to a degree. But a true, interim verifiable system of an identifiable, equal, limited number of nuclear weapons in the hands of only clearly-defined major superpowers that agree to work on final elimination, after a period of demonstrated mutual trust, would be a very good first step. This would have to be coupled with a system that ensures that others cannot develop such capabilities undetected, but we just about have that system now. There are many reasons for disarmament, but there is no reason more important than to remove the threat of annihilation from those of us who simply want to live our lives, go to work, enjoy our loved ones, and do the rest of things that constitute ordinary living. Do you think nuclear war would enable us to continue with our lives as we know them today? Hardly.
The sum total of all of these things is a big order to fill. We are also far away from doing so. Nonetheless, distance is no reason to keep us from deciding to make the necessary changes to get us back on track. And the end result would likely be this: it is extremely unlikely that any terrorist can stand up to a nation that is a friend, that communicates, that is not an aggressor, that has strong internal defenses, and that remains true to itself.
© 2006, srman07
posted by srman07 at 6:23 PM
<< Home