October 4, 2001
Some Perspective on the War against Terror
How well I remember the first terrifying words in our press. They were terrifying because they did not report, did not analyze, but only incited rage. It was the beginning of the murderous, pointless war in Vietnam, the bloodiest part of a postwar "crusade" against communism, and the headlines and editorials screamed about "Reds" at the gates.
Today, perspective again seems lost in America. The word crusade quickly, and without the lest reflection on its meaning, came to the president's lips. A "minister" at a national prayer service invoked the image of hurling unspeakable weapons against America's enemies. And many Americans have openly said they just want someone killed and something destroyed, regardless of evidence.
Although it lacks sentiment, there is, even for terrible events, a valid accounting of numbers. The death of six thousand Americans has been treated as an event without parallel. This is not only inaccurate, it is foolish and unhelpful.
Just fifty-six years ago, the world fought a war in which fifty million people perished. Entire cities were obliterated, and an effort was made to obliterate a people.
One spectacular event does not justify a vast change in the nation's business and priorities. How easily we pass over the simple fact that proper airline security would have prevented the attack. No drums and drama, just practical measures like secure cockpit doors.
Stunning, too, is the lack of public curiosity about the motives of the people who did this. Why would a large group of people go through immense difficulties to smash themselves into buildings? The label "terrorist," unlike a diagnosis of "rabid" for an attacking dog, is not a sufficient explanation.
Missing entirely from the new crusade is a definition of terrorism.
Everyone's effort at definition would likely include attacks on civil society and the killing of non-combatants in the name of political, ideological, or religious belief. Beyond that, things become murky.
Does terrorism apply only to acts by people outside government? Then does the crusade commit us to perpetual war against all ruthless, authoritarian governments on earth? Including Saudi Arabia?
Another form of state terrorism might be the subjugation of neighboring peoples. Do we include the Israeli forces that broke every written agreement with the U.S. governing the defensive use of American weapons when they invaded Lebanon, killing thousands of innocent people and precipitating a civil war?
Do we include the current prime minister of Israel who was responsible during this invasion for the deaths of about two thousand Palestinians, all non-combatants, at the hands of militia under hi ¿s control?
I don't think so. These are our terrorists.
Do we include the violent Cuban refugee groups in Florida that for many years carried out the most appalling acts in Cuba, including (only a few years ago) leaving bombs in hotels? Earlier, these groups shot up Russian ships in Cuban ports, dropped things from airplanes, and set murderous booby traps. No, they are our terrorists, and we have safely harbored them for 40 years.
Will the crusade be taken to the IRA which over the last 30 years has caused terrible grief and still refuses to surrender its arms? I don't think so. They aren't our terrorists, but there's a soft spot in the American heart for them. Most of the money for IRA weapons came from Americans - millions of dollars for weapons used to kill the soldiers of our most steadfast NATO ally and blow up office buildings in London
The new crusade will likely instigate more violence by newly-alienated groups. This is especially true if the character of the effort is seen as anti-Muslim, which to this point it most clearly is, despite feeble, photo-op efforts to reassure the world that we believe most Muslims are good people.
Of course, the Middle East is never far from instability. Authoritarian government or closed oligarchy, often out of step with local public sentiment, characterizes our best friends in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Egypt.
Pakistan, a state we have strongly pressured to support us despite its support of the Taliban and its many Muslims sympathetic to Bin Laden, is an atomic power with significant stockpiles of fissile material. Does anyone in his right mind want this up for grabs in a region that includes Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran?
Our policies in the Middle East have been unbalanced for years, and the tremendous frustration and anger this breeds are almost unknown to Americans who see themselves as essentially fair-minded people.
In this country, we cannot even discuss the problem accurately. Our press endlessly uses the Orwellian term, the "peace process," a term which has no substance and serves to avoid the actual problem which is that the Palestinians must either be granted an independent state or be absorbed into Israel, or some combination of the two.
For half a century, Israeli prime ministers have insisted that the Palestinians' homeland is Jordan, and many of them have openly advocated annexing the West Bank. The closest Israel has ever come to allowing anything resembling a Palestinian state was Mr. Barak's proposal at Camp David, which did not come close to satisfying the U.N.'s Resolution 242.
The good intentions of the present government of Israel may be judged by Mr. Sharon's actions in the weeks following September 11. Mr. Sharon exploited the confusion by refusing, as he had previously agreed, to meet with Mr. Arafat, he furthermore publicly compared Arafat to Bin Laden (which is quite interesting in light of Arafat's donating blood for American victims), and the Israeli army reportedly was preparing, according to Mr. Peres, to murder Arafat. Surely, this cannot be the way to peace and justice.
Yes, by all means, let us bring anyone truly responsible for the destruction in New York to justice, but the notion of another American crusade, a crusade against terror, is a terrible mistake. It is disproportionate, it is poorly defined, and it is fraught with uncertainty. And as it takes on a large and violent scope, it will certainly let Israel off the hook from doing what justice demands she do.
John Chuckman
lilaccottage@prodigy.net
|
