William Pfaff, the columnist for the IHT and New York Review of Books (and author of ‘Fear, Anger and Failure: A Chronicle of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror, from the Attacks of September 11, 2001 to Defeat in Baghdad in 2003’ – which ought to give you a sense of his position on the war) has a column up in the IHT that explains how he thinks we’re missing the boat on the war on terror.
Of course, he’s wrong both on matters of fact and theory. But there’s something that he made me think about so let me roll it out for you as well.His core claim is:
Terrorism and the measures adopted against it acquire reciprocal momentum that is all but impossible to stop once a certain threshold has been crossed. That threshold was crossed in Russia last week, with potentially enormous consequences for civil liberties in that country, for civil peace in the Caucasus and possibly for the existing peaceful relationship between Russia and America.
This is why issues of nationalism, irredentism and religion – the usual motives for terrorist outrages – are so desperately dangerous. Ignored or misinterpreted, assigned to spurious international causes, they can do immense damage. They have to be dealt with in their natural dimensions.
Note that he doesn’t believe in an ‘international terrorist movement’ – he thinks it’s a straw man erected by nationalist leaders to keep from dealing with the real, local causes of terror.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has mistakenly (or culpably) assigned an international cause to his crisis. He has followed George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon in identifying his national problem as “international terrorism.” This is not true. Putin’s terrorism problem is specific to him and to Russia. America’s terrorism problem is specific to the United States, its past, its foreign relationships and its policies. Israel’s is a matter of Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians.
The source of terrorism in Russia since the late 1990s has been the ethnic nationalist uprising in Chechnya that Russian authorities have brutally been trying to stop.
Today there certainly are international reinforcements fighting for the Chechens, and there are increasing numbers of radical Islamic teachers and clerics in the Caucasus. Like Iraq, the region has become a battlefront in the war of Islamic radicals against the infidels. But to hold them responsible for what has happened in Chechnya is like insisting that “regime remnants and foreign terrorists” are the only ones doing the fighting in Iraq.
The affairs retain their national causes, and the only hope of solution remains national. But once the terrorist action-reaction auction begins, it is almost impossible to stop. Russia has already invaded Chechnya twice to “end terrorism,” but terrorism simply got worse. Ariel Sharon’s entire career has consisted in failed attempts to solve Israel’s problem of national existence by brute destruction of what he considers its enemies. The United States invaded Afghanistan and overturned the Taliban government, but the terrorists took to the hills and the country is in political and social pieces. And now there is Iraq.
He’s misreading matters on several levels, but we ought to keep in mind one thing which he may be getting right – that there are specific geopolitical drivers that make terrorism an attractive proposition for certain populations, and that we ought to be splitting those off as a key element in our struggle against terrorists. He has a point in that, but it’s not enough by itself.
Here’s what he’s missing, and it’s relatively simple.
What’s the difference between the horror of Columbine and the greater horror of Middle School #1?
State support.
It’s the difference between two crazy kids with guns and homemade explosives and a platoon armed with military weapons and professional-grade demolition gear. It’s the difference between a group that has the patience and resources to preposition guns and explosives months before, and two kids who learn to shoot by playing Doom and going to the neighborhood rifle range.
I don’t think that dismantling the network of state support for terrorism will end terrorism; I think that – as long as we’re fighting Bad Philosophy, people who think like James Wolcott will decide they don’t want to wait for a hurricane, but to do a little damage on their own.
But that damage will be far more limited – even though still tragic – while the scale of damage that will be done by terrorists with state resources knows no clear upper limit.
That’s why I supported the war in Iraq, and continue to do so. because the immediate objective must be to break down the network of state sponsors of terror, and Iraq was probably the best place to start.
Pfaff ignores the reality of state support for terror in other states – as the Arab world uses the Palestinian proxy soldiers to fight their war with Israel ‘to the last Palestinian’; he ignores the reality of Saudi and Iranian – and Iraqi – support for transnational terrorist organizations, and the support by those organizations for local terrorists.
But the problem of facts on the ground isn’t his biggest one.
His message is clear – we’ve lost.
He posits terrorism as a part of an ‘auction of violence’ in which each side raises the bid against the other, and suggests that
The religious fanatic has no tangible goal to be satisfied. He – or she, as we increasingly find – wants paradise and the destruction of heretics. For such a person, the terrorism auction has no earthly limit.
and
If the terrorist auction has a tangible value, such as an independent Chechnya (if that is what the Beslan terrorists wanted: nobody has yet said what they wanted, assuming that they wanted anything tangible), there is no solution except to give it to them. Everyone knows how to solve the tangible and national part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An acceptable compromise of their national claims was agreed to long ago. The clash of eschatological expectations between some Israelis and some Palestinians is what continues to make that solution impossible.
(emphasis added)
Now when one person says something like this, it’s possibly careless writing or a slip of the tongue. But when you hear it twice, it begins to sound like a movement.
“…give it to them.”
And in so doing, prove to every group with a grievance and a high tolerance for blood that they can get what they want if they kill enough children.
I’ve argued before that the war on terror stands on three legs:
1) kill or capture the terrorists;
2) harden the targets;
3) provide countervailing ‘philosophies’
To that, on rereading my post on Boyd and terrorism, I’ll add something which may mirror what he and Matt said, but is in my mind profoundly different.
From ‘Patterns of Conflict‘, slide 108:
Action:
Undermine guerilla cause and destroy their cohesion by demonstrating integrity and competence of government to represent and serve needs of the people – rather than exploit and impoverish them for the benefit of a greedy elite.*
Take political initiative to root out and visibly punish corruption. Select new leaders with recognized competence as well as popular appeal. Ensure that they deliver justice, eliminate grievances and connect government with grass roots.*
Infiltrate guerilla movement as well as employ population for intelligence about guerilla plans, operations, and organization.
Seal-off guerilla regions from outside world by diplomatic, psychological, and various other activities that strip-away potential allies as well as by disrupting or straddling communications that connect these regions with the outside world.
Deploy administrative talent, police, and counter-guerilla teams into affected localities and regions to inhibit guerilla communication, coordination, and movement; minimize guerilla contact with local inhabitants; isolate their ruling cadres; and destroy their infrastructure.
Exploit presence of above teams to build-up local government as well as recruit militia for local and regional security in order to protect people from the persuasion and coercion efforts of guerilla cadres and their fighting units.
Use special teams in a complementary effort to penetrate guerilla controlled regions. Employ (guerillas’ own) tactics of reconnaissance, infiltration, surprise hit-and-run, and sudden ambush to: keep roving bands off-balance, make base areas untenable, and disrupt communication with the outside world.
Expand these complementary security/penetration efforts into affected region after affected region in order to undermine, collapse, and replace guerilla influence with government influence and control.
Visible link these efforts with local political/economic/social reform in order to connect central government with hopes and needs of people, thereby gain their support and confirm government legitimacy.
Idea:
Break guerillas’ moral-mental-physical hold over the population, destroy their cohesion, and bring about their collapse via political initiative that demonstrates moral legitimacy and vitality of government and by relentless military operations that emphasize stealth/fast-temp/fluidity-of-action and cohesion of overall effort.
*If you cannot realize such a political program, you might consider changing sides.
(emphasis and footnote his)
This is dealing with guerrilla warfare, not terrorism, but I believe that the precepts apply there just as clearly. ‘Root causes’ must be a part of the solution – but are not and never will be the solution themselves.
Was I too harsh on Matthew? I’m thinking about it.
What’s Arabic for ‘useful idiot’?
My reading is that attitudes such as Pfaff’s are not so much wrong as they are behind the curve.
Did the bad situation in the Caucuses over the last ten years contribute to the current terror? Sure. Was Russia culpable in this? Hard to deny. Dan Darling is always diligent about pointing this out, and rightly so.
Smoking contributes to cancer. Russia had a three pack a day habit going in Chechnia for too long, so they shouldn’t be too surprised now when the doctors hand Putin the X-Ray and shake their heads. But to suggest now, as Pfaff would, that the solution lies in quitting smoking, is ludicrously inadequate.
The terror has now metastacized, linked up with tumors elswhere in the body of the world. It is a systemic disease and it requires a systemic cure that acknowledges the true nature of the disease.
The cancer of the jihadi mentality is ready to attack anywhere the tissue is weak. Those who advise against weakening the tissue further are correct, but they insist that the cure go no farther.
Give them what they want? Sure, stop smoking. But the cancer does want you to stop smoking. It wants you to die.
Pfaff and his ilk, out of ignorance or culpability, refuse to see this.
A representative of the AQ boss in the Chechnya area said:
“Q: That means that those in Russia who say that you want to create a caliphate in the Caucasus from sea to sea, are right?
R: Yes, it is so. Since they are unwilling to negotiate with us, then we’ll be doing what we can. And there is a lot we can do. Next year the war will seize the entire Caucasus from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. Apart from Ossetia and Ingushetia, this year another guerrilla war has already started in two areas of Dagestan bordering Chechnya. I swear by Allah, this is only the beginning. Russian authorities are well aware of this and this is why they are trying to organize formations of the local residents in the area who could resist us effectively. Similar process is taking place in Chechnya. But it will come to absolutely nothing. Having reached a certain level of confrontation inside Chechnya, Russia will sooner or later have to withdraw its troops beyond the Terek River, for instance. In that case we will need no more than two weeks to destroy all the pro-Russian puppet formations.”
Chechnya today instead of being a Freedom Movement of Locals is yet again another
example of Wahhabi Sunni Imperialism
against, in Chechnya the Sufi Local
Population.
It is no longer an= Internal Russia
affair between the Central Government
and the Chechnyans.
Was I too harsh on Matthew?
Yes. Perhaps you just want a liberal whipping boy to routinely smack to bolster your cred around these parts. That’s fine, but I think he deserved some slack for that particular post. I mean, he’s 22 years old for chrissake.
Now, as for these guys …
Praktike: If I may remind you, Dan is 21 and Colt is 18. Mebbe it’s time for Wee Matty to grow up!
Another missing point on terrorism, or roots thereof:
On this site at least, I don’t see mention of some of the US’s homegrown terrorists.
1. Timothy McVeigh
2. Eric Rudolph
3. there was a bomb that exploded at a stem cell research lab just recently.
4. Unabomber
5. Anthrax scare – that is most likley locally (US) produced as well.
Perhaps I’ve missed it, but a lot of the apocalyptic Christians around these here parts, they don’t sound much different than apocalyptic Muslims.
The point is made well, that while the coming together as a “band of terrorists” with common links internationally, is clearly happening, and is missed by Pfaff – all of the various terrorists organizations usually are focused locally – from Sikhs in Punjab, to Chechens in Russia, to Christian fundamentalists in the US, to Sri Lankan terrorists, to the IRA, to Hamas, etc.
Do people here view the “War on Terror” confrontation as taking on all the above mentioned groups?
Just add 70 years of imperialism, to foment bitterness across the culture. The mix might be just as poisonous.
I might have missed any references here to local terrorists. If so, my apologies, I’m looking forward to being educated.
To follow up on that, a resourceful american Christian fundamentalist with an apocalyptic bent born in the USA , is actually probably MORE likely to get ahold of the right biological, chemical or nuclear material, and use it to bad ends. We americans are good at doing what we set are minds to, if the means are available.
It’s hard to take a guy seriously when he is capable only of writing opening sentences–or are they really aphorisms? Zen Koan? Who the hell knows?
Behind the turgid, self-important Pfaffian prose lays the old gem of Dialectical logic. The terrorist attacks, we foolishly engage in a “so called” life or death struggle–thesis, antithesis, with synthesis ultimately coming in the form of annihilation.
Step off that crazy train, implores Pfaff from the Banks of the Seine. Just give the guy what he wants.
When your child screams, just give the little shit what he wants. If you don’t, he may take a bunch of hostages and shoot them. Then you’ll just have to give him what he wants ANYWAY. I’m just trying to save you some heartache.
Stupid parenting=stupid geopolitics.
The idea that everyone knows what the terrorists want (see the eyes roll?) and the Americans, Russians and Israelis are just stubborn morons is wearing a little thin, don’t you think?
News flash: the Russians GAVE Chechnya independence of sorts–they misused it, got involved in the wrong crowd, and looked like they were fixing to burn down the neighborhood. What should Putin have done? What would the French have done if Switzerland was overrun by Islamic thugs and started invading Italy? Oh, right, bad example.
Okay, how bout Israel? They GAVE the Palestinians a state. Not good enough. They want it all. Pfaff can fix the problem–the Jews have 2 days to clear out all their stuff. Give the guy what he wants.
And us? Well, I’m sure we’ll all get used to wearing burkhas and praying to Mecca five times a day. Give the guy what he wants.
Who said this is Bad Philosophy week?
For the record, I think Pfaff is all wet.
There certainly is a terrorist international.
It’s called Al Qaeda.
Many of these dudes met each other in Peshawar or Quetta or Jalalabad in the 80s, and then went home to work on their local conflicts. Many of them still kept in touch. Many of them jetted around the world from conflict to conflict. Others — the newer generation — have met each other in the basements of mosques in Marseilles, Paris, Londonistan, and Hamburg, joined by a common ideology. No state is “sponsoring” a lot of these cells — they skim money from mandatory charitable donations, extort it in other cases, run drugs, diamonds, etc. A lot of their money comes from wealthy Islamists in the Gulf states who want to spread jihad. I think the state sponsorship stuff is way oversold.
JC,
Recognizing one’s own ignorance is always a good start.
Your list speaks for itself–apart from Macveigh, they were your run of the mill old-fashioned nutball terrorist. Macveigh just rented a bigger than average truck. Ted Bundy killed more people than any of them, save Macveigh.
Given the “scariness” of Americans (especially the evangelical Christians you mention), and the firepower at our fingertips, it’s a wonder your list is so short and the violence is directed at fellow Americans. Honestly, it’s a little embarrassing when you compare us to AQ or Islamic Jihad. Some rogue imperialist superpower we turned out to be!
Thanks for playing, though!
JC –
In this post (and in the past) I’ve pointed out that a certain ‘base level’ of terrorism is homegrown, and comes – in my mind – from Bad Philsoophy.
In this post, you may have missed this:
A.L.
Terrorism and the measures adopted against it acquire reciprocal momentum that is all but impossible to stop once a certain threshold has been crossed.
Are human beings rocks rolling down hill? Or are they making choices?
Are the root causes poverty and illiteracy? Or are they the cultural forces that cause the poverty and illiteracy?
praktike, re: #28978
Not only is the funding decentralized, the actual “ties” between the players are less relevant than the shared ideology and worldview of radical Islamism. Thus you can have a global movement without a single sponsor or even a real C-and-C hierarchy.
“State sponsorship” is somewhat less dominant these days, but perhaps because the non-state sponsorship networks have grown so formidable. But I wouldn’t support a claim that state sponsorship is no longer relevant.
lewy14-
I think of it as kind of like Emo fans — they tend to find each other instinctively.
Kelli,
Good call on JC’s list. And besides, were any of them Christian fundamentalists? Certainly McVeigh and Kaczynski weren’t!
I couldn’t quite put my finger on what was wrong with Pfaff’s article until reading lewy14 upthread. That smoking metaphor is just about right.
praktike –
“Perhaps you just want a liberal whipping boy to routinely smack to bolster your cred around these parts.”
And perhaps I’d like to be part of a liberal movement that doesn’t regularly march off cliffs?
A.L.
“Are the root causes poverty and illiteracy? Or are they the cultural forces that cause the poverty and illiteracy?”
From 1996 to 1999 a UN Relief worker, Nasra Hassan, interviewed 250 would be suicide bombers from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and those who recruited them as well as the families of those who succeeded. He found that none of them were
Under-educated
Desperately poor
Simple Minded
Suicidal
Or Depressed.
Instead Nasra Hassan found that the suicide bombers fit the following profile:
Age 18 to 38
Middle Class with paying jobs (except the fugitives); 2 were the sons of millionaires.
More than one half were refugees from Isreal.
From all appearances, they were normal members of their families.
Polite and serious
Model Youths
Deeply Religious
Well informed about politics in Isreal and the Arab World.
Most were bearded
View their actions as sanctioned with religious legitimacy.
Boyd’s thoughts on guerilla warfare do appear to be wise (as usual.)
But can they be implemented by the present USG (or a potential Kerry-led USG?)
>>Undermine guerilla cause and destroy their cohesion by demonstrating integrity and competence of government to represent and serve needs of the people – rather than exploit and impoverish them for the benefit of a greedy elite.*
>>Take political initiative to root out and visibly punish corruption. Select new leaders with recognized competence as well as popular appeal. Ensure that they deliver justice, eliminate grievances and connect government with grass roots.*
These things would seem to be _very hard_ to do. The notion that the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex will be able to work the MidEast according to the above principles seems quite dubious indeed.
The smoking analogy does seem reasonable. Clearly the Russians need to stop smoking AND have cancer surgery. Cutting back on the atrocities against the Chechen population will slow the rate at which more crazies are created, but some solid police and military action will still be necessary to deal with the crazies that already exist.
The problem here is that the Russian Army right now is the cancer-surgery equivalent of a rusty chainsaw. Using the chainsaw will remove the lung cancer, but it will be bloody, messy, and the patient isn’t going to survive. The patient might not even have any organs that can be salvaged for donation.
Yglesias
bq. _”Stupid parenting=stupid geopolitics.”_
A lot of us have been saying that for quite some time. The problems in parenting are an issue that has been high on the list of both the democratic and republican parties (past and present). They may not agree on how to solve the issues but they certainly agree there is one (of their own making) that needs to be addressed.
Kelli,
While I don’t really appreciate the snark, I would have to agree you are correct. Not the most thoughtful comment I’ve ever posted. My bad. Hopefully I’m allowed “oops” comments now and then. (and then of course the comeback “”All your comments are oops comments JC!”)
Clearly, the Al-Queda and ilk terrorists are much more broadly organized and interconnected than lone american gunmen, or small group gunmen. Not only that, but in the past, these groups have gotten discreet, but significant state support, especially from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Afghanistan. So in that sense, they definitely are much more of a threat, as the last month has borne out.
However, I don’t think your very correct comment obviates the fact that a single “nutball terrorist” (I like that description by the way) who is competent, can be capable, in this new age of technical advancement, of significant harm. And we should be prepared for the nutballs as well.
Last few YEARS have borne out…
And perhaps I’d like to be part of a liberal movement that doesn’t regularly march off cliffs?
What’s the cliff here? Suggesting that Russian tactics have been counterproductive in Chechnya? Being imprecise in saying so? Because if that’s your issue, then, again, you really ought to be complaining about these folks as well.