Thoughts on Terrorism...

My friend Jane just posted a really good review of an article on terrorism on her blog http://evidence-not-seen.blogspot.com/ (the post titled “Enemies, Foreign and Domestic”). It’s funny because I was discussing this very topic with my friend Tim a few days ago after we watched the State of the Union. So with that fresh in my mind, here are my thoughts on terrorism and Bush’s “war on terror”.

One of the main things we were talking about was how “terrorism” is defined and who gets to define it. A state that holds power (i.e. the US) can use the tragedy of 9/11 to define “terrorism” in a way that serves its strategic interests – using it as a blanket term to target Arab “extremist” groups. Ironically, the term “terrorist” was first coined during the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution, and it was used to describe those in the government – not some extreme splinter groups. When the US does talk about terrorism in terms of governments, it is very selective – extending the term to Arab “state sponsors of terror” that are viewed as the “enemy”, while simultaneously funding the state terrorism of Israel and carrying out its own terrorist activities.

Bush talks about how imperative it is to steadfastly continue this fight against terror, but the truth is that as it stands now this is not a fight we can win. Our strategy has been and will continue to be a colossal failure unless we commit to address the root causes of terrorism. Simply trying to capture and kill individual terrorists won’t work because for each one we get there will be two more to take his place. This is not traditional warfare in which the troops are finite – unless we deal with the conditions that create terrorism we will never be able to win. One of the principle conditions is denial of basic rights. When a people group is oppressed and stripped of legitimate means of making its voice heard, it is perfectly rational for them to turn to illegitimate or violent means. But if given access to the political process, those violent methods hold less appeal, just as Roth said. Conditions of poverty, lack of hope for the future, and lack of opportunity are also key sources of terrorism that must be addressed. And of course our foreign policy… Osama bin Laden’s initial reasons for hating the US were based not on ideology or religion, but on our foreign policy – specifically, our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia near the holy site of Mecca, and our support of the state of Israel which has mistreated the Palestinians for decades.

Our arrogant and unjust foreign policy must change, and deliberate efforts must be made to alleviate conditions of poverty and oppression if we ever hope to stop terrorism. Otherwise the cycle of violence will just continue… MLK (one of my heroes!) has an amazing quote that talks about that: "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

Jane talked about terrorism in the context of human rights, which is very appropriate. The hypocrisy of our government is infuriating – apparently, the US only advocates human rights when it suites our strategic interests. Our citizens must be protected at all costs, but we can do whatever we want with those “suspected” of terrorism. We can heed or ignore international law whenever it is convenient or expedient for us. People will always make the argument that if the terrorists are trying to kill us we must go to any lengths to protect ourselves. While it is an important function of government to protect its citizens, in doing so we must not lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists. When we do, we lose our moral high ground and are really no different from them. Killing and torture are evil and wrong, regardless of whether they are done in the name of “Allah” or in the name of “national security”. Human rights belong to ALL people – regardless of their skin color, accent, or country of origin. And it’s about time the US starts respecting that!

(As a side-note, I was shocked – although not surprised – to learn in Jane’s post that Bush un-signed the International Criminal Court in May 2002, which is “a forum for prosecuting future cases of genocide”. When I told my friend Tim this, he immediately asked, “What strategic advantage would this have for the US?” concluding that either the US was planning to commit genocide or one of its allies was – bingo, Israel. Scary…)