Kevin (Calpundit) pretty clearly delineates the distinction between his position on the War in Iraq and mine here. He says, in summary:
…I guess maybe that’s at the core of the schism in America today. Lileks and his compatriots think the terrorists have the power to bring western civilization to its knees, whereas I think of them as simply a threat that we will rather quickly and efficiently dispatch. They may be scary, but in terms of actual power they are the merest flea on the back of the United States and the rest of the western democracies.
I wonder what it is that causes such vast gulfs in instinctive reaction between people who probably more or less agree on the actual nature of the threat itself?
Actually, I’ve covered much of this already, in a post I did in March, before the war. I said then:
The pattern of Arab terrorism, unlike Irish terrorism, or Tamil terrorism, has been expansionist and ambitious. Unlike the IRA, who at the height of the recent insurrection, struck at British power either through attacks on British soldiers in Ulster or through largely symbolic attacks on the British mainland, the Islamist battle against the West has escalated from aircraft hijackings to Olympic terror, to hijacking ocean liners, to the original attack on the WTC, to the Cole to 9/11.
And while in fact, the Clinton Administration was somewhat effective in following a ‘legalistic’ arrest and try strategy, it obviously hasn’t worked. I’ve always been annoyed at the righties who claimed that Clinton was snoozing at the switch and that the only U.S. response to terrorism was to lob a cruise missile into an aspirin plant.
The reality is that Clinton’s team was highly focussed on terrorism…but on terrorism as crime, as opposed to as an instrument of war. We focussed on identifying the actual perpetrators, and attempting to arrest them or cause their arrest.
This is pretty much the typical liberal response to 9/11. Send in SWAT, pull ’em out in cuffs, and let’s sit back and watch the fun on Court TV.
I’ve been ambivalent about whether this is a good strategy conceptually, and looking at the history…in which we’re batting about .600 in arresting and trying Islamist terrorists…I have come to the realization that the fact is that it hasn’t worked. The level and intensity of terrorist actions increased, all the way through 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan.
And a part of what I have realized is that as long as states – particularly wealthy states – are willing to explicitly house terrorists and their infrastructure, or implicitly turn a blind eye to their recruitment and funding, we can’t use the kind of ‘police’ tactics that worked against Baader-Meinhof or the Red Army Faction. The Soviet Union and it’s proxies offered limited support to these terrorist gangs, but they didn’t have a national population to recruit from and bases and infrastructure that only a state can provide.
So unless we shock the states supporting terrorism into stopping, the problem will get worse. Note that it will probably get somewhat worse if we do…but that’s weather, and I’m worried about climate.
The specific climate I’m worried about is one that is effected by two things; one is pragmatic, and one philosophical.
The pragmatic issue is that the ratio of damage to effort that a committed amateur can do is rising rapidly, and pretty arguably approaching the hockey-stick upswing so loved by venture capitalists. In an autarkic (self-sufficient) region or nation, it is hard to deeply damage a society or an economy. In a deeply interpenetrated world economy, where we have days of food, fuel and water on hand at any location, it is actually rather easy to have a truly significant impact. Now I’m obviosuly an immense believer in the resilience of humans and human systems. I’ve never been one to see THE COMING COLLAPSE as likely or even significantly possible. But I’m convinced that it wouldn’t be hard for a substate actor, or a group of moderately wealthy fanatics to cause enough damage to truly impact our lives for a really long time. It’s already been done.
The philosophic issue is that the engine that drives our resilience is faith – in our futures and each other – and hope. The same circumstance may be a hardship to some and a Holocaust to others. Looking at our society, I’m seeing more and more that convinces me that not only do we have a deficit of hope and faith, but that the deficit in some is so vast that it tilts them toward the kind of mad actions that we worry about.
While the reality of Arab terror is that it is today a sign of political and cultural weakness, not strength, our culture and politics are weak as well, and I worry about contagion.
Someday, in my lifetime, we will see an animal rights or anti-abortion fanatic don an explosive vest and step into a crowded room and then on to history.
I want to make that less likely.
I want to make it clear to the state sponsors of terror that it is a losing proposition, and that they should find other ways to divert the frustrations of their population.
I want terrorism to be an aberration, rather than a way of life. When it is truly an aberration, we can reduce it to the status of crime, and treat it as Kevin suggests.
Until then, I’ll see it differently. And the difference in vision leads me to a far different kind of response.
Just the act of being ‘scary’ gives them the power that Kevin seems to want to ignore.
No, I don’t want terrorism treated solely through the criminal justice system. At the same time, however, it’s not clear that standard military operations are the answer either. Invading Iraq was of dubious value in fighting terrorism, I think, and in any case we can’t keep that up against very many other countries.
I might post a few more ideas about this tomorrow just to see what everyone thinks.
AL: Sorry about the double trackback ping. Not sure why that happened…
I actually think Iraq was a strong stepping stone towards confronting Islamic terror. The protests in Iran, the hudna by groups in Israel/Palestine aren’t coincidences. Plus, without a source of legitimacy and financial support, suicide bombings in the West Bank and Gaza are harder to mount.
I’ve come to see Kevin Drum as a sort of “Sgt Shultz” of Liberalism, not wanting to see a lot of things.
This ranged from head-in-the-sand reaction to the rather extreme vitroil of the anti-war protests (which one could watch on C-SPAN and see with one’s own eyes that the they weren’t just anti-war, but hostile to our entire society – some of the most rousing lines for the crowds had little to do with war and a lot more to do with antipathy to free market democracy) to a minimal concern over the external challenges. Quite a different attitude than that of, say Paul Berman, who takes this more seriously.
For Drum, these things are problems but they pale in significance when compared to the looming menace of tax cuts and the persistant presence of conservatives in America’s public square.
I think it is correct to characterize the war on bad philosophy as a clash of civilizations.
However, I don’t think “loss of western civilization” is the threat we’re facing in the war, at least not in our lifetimes.
To that extent, Kevin is right; we aren’t facing barbarians at the gates, necessiting a military response.
That said, we are facing a very real threat of losing an American city and hundreds of thousands lives to a stray nuke.
Despite all the talk about terrorists buying a nuke on the black market in Russia, it is far more likely that a nuke would be acquired from a rogue state. North Korea, in fact, has made it clear that they feel entitled to sell nukes to anyone they want.
This is the threat we’re facing right now.
The Bush administration clearly understands this, and has shown itself willing to intervene in Iraq to prevent it from going nuclear. Unless the despots ruling North Korea and Iran come to their senses, it may well have to do it again.
Do the Democrats (read: the 9 presidential candidates) understand this threat? Are they willing to intervene militarily to prevent the loss of a city? Listening to Kerry, it seems like he’s more concerned with having first responders equipped to deal with the aftermath of a major attack than with preventing the attack from occurring.
(Kerry is absolutely right in pointing out weaknesses in our preparedness, but he has his priorities wrong in thinking that the first priority should be to prevent a nuke from reaching the US, and that the second one should be to deal with the aftermath. The first priority should be to prevent the terrorists from acquiring a nuke in the first place, even if it means a military attack on a rogue state).
What many people seem not to build into their thinking, is the gradual acceleration of the general development, in power, accessibility, miniaturization, deadly synergies, of technologies employable for mass destruction—irradiative, nuclear, chemical, biological. Deadly synergies: e.g., advance in aerosol tech may represent advance in biowarfare tech.
These advances, not to mention other things, lead to the weakening & eventual collapse of deterrence. Clausewitzean doctrine ceases to apply. Why should a foreign power or a terrorist network want us to know who attacked us?—the contrary may be more advantageous to them—just to put us out of action for ten years. We can’t really afford any more 9/11s, much less something worse.
If one or more of our cities is irradiated, nuked, poisoned, or plagued, & if we don’t know who to strike back at, then what? Even if we then strike back at all the usual suspects, we don’t want to find ourselves painted into that corner in the first place, or even to find our cities ruined in the first place. What if they don’t even care whether we know who they are & whether we strike back? An Iranian ayatollah recently said it would be worth it to nuke Israel even if it resulted in the nuking of Iran. Some folks regard humanity itself as a disease. As is sometimes asked, what if the Unabomber had been not a mathematician but a molecular biologist?
We need to reduce & as nearly as possible eliminate the multiplicity of cranky despotisms & terrorist networks having or aspiring to connections with WMD—we need to clean out the swamp. This pertains not only to active cooperation among them but to their playing on strategic synergies among them to test our resources & capabilities of dealing with them all at the same time. In that sense, the removal of Saddam’s regime ramifies favorably throughout the Mid-east for us & helps us against North Korea, too. It reduces the threat from the swamp.
Saddam had a well established pattern of pursuit, use, & concealment of WMD, & of mendacity, sadism, mass-murderousness, ambition, & expansionism—altogether an ominous brew to say the least! In particular he lied to inspectors, defectors contradicted him, & the inspectors subsequently verified the defectors’ claims, very serious claims. He & his regime could not have the rights & legitimate grievances of somebody presumed innocent. (Also, it is not on any presumption of innocence under a standard of guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the publicly available overall intel picture of him should be viewed.)
Even Blix admitted that Saddam’s cooperation was far from sufficient & that what cooperation he gave was because of our forces built up & on alert nearby. To have held off indefinitely into the future would have been to do something logistically unfeasible for us, politically unfeasible for our allies in the region & perhaps for us, & all for diminishing returns. As the threat of our invading lost credibility, our general seriousness would have come into question, thus weakening our effectiveness. And as time goes by & weaponizable tech develops, a WMD program may become rather more difficult to monitor. Into such a future with Saddam or Uday or Qusay? And who knows but Chirac or de Villepin would soon enough have started leading a new chant: If it’s so important, why hasn’t the US invaded yet?—Chirac who lost all credibility as an “honest broker” when his government said in 1998 that it was time for the inspectors to wrap their work up & leave Iraq. And our military hands would have been tied forever when we need them eventually free to deal with others. And failure to deal with Saddam effectively after the build-up would have been a green light to cranky despots around the world to proceed with their ambitions no matter what the US, not to mention the UN, said.
The logistical & political limits of our window of opportunity were legitimate & compelling factors in our decision to invade. Any ethical approach to decision-making demands their being taken into account. The point was not to try yet again to see whether we could get along with Saddam but for Saddam, who was not presumably post-1998-innocent, to come completely clean on terms & in a timeframe optimal for us, our allies in the region, & our troops at risk. We had the right, & the obligation to the future, to stop giving him ways out & instead to press the issues & bring them to a head.
It is now deadly foolishness to oppose the idea of action against despotisms with the question: But what have they done to us lately? We have to base our actions on what we know of the long-term patterns of despotisms & terrorists. They’re thinking about how we’re thinking & some may lie low till the coast is clear.
The accelerated advance of weaponizable technology inexorably brings accelerated geopolitical change. Gone are the staid days when people could sit around talking with some reasonableness about what international politics might look like in fifty years.
So, ForNow, it sounds like you’re saying that because we have power, and feel threatened, we should use it, and use it in a blunt force manner? And how is that going to not lead to more terrorists?
Really, it should be multi-pronged. Go after terrorists where you can – not necessarily with an invasion force, but with a special strike force led by real intelligence – humint, which we haven’t tried to develop for over 20 years. Cut aid to countries that don’t follow IMF economic rules, and instead give that aid to NGOs that will actually make a difference on the ground.
Just trying to attack countries where we think there are terrorists, or who have horrible leaders, won’t do a damn thing to stop terrorism. It especially won’t do anything when we can’t get the world behind us in the attack efforts, and get the world to start laughing at us during our cleanup failures.
Addressing the article topic:
Terrorism can’t necessarily be treated as war, because it is far too easy to accuse someone of terrorist actions – and far too easy for someone to be mistreated because of it. However, it is not simply a crime. It’s somewhere in the middle, but I’m not really sure where, or what that implies.
The response to my comment was not a response. It did not engage on questions of established long-term patterns either in particular cases or generically. It runs away when it seems to attack, with such phrases as “when we feel” & so on. There is no recognition of the problem of the accelerated pace of development of weaponizable technology, much less a recognition of the problem of building the issue of such development into one’s thinking in a general way. It does not address the issue of what, if any, presumptions of innocence are reasonable to make in a case like Saddam’s, & how the absence of such presumptions ramifies with regard to the interpretation of intel & with what, as a practical matter, is to be done. And so on.
I can agree only with the implicit idea in the post that intelligence & the intelligence system must be improved.
On the issue of treating terrorism as crime for the legal system, versus as war, I come down pretty firmly on the side of Armed Liberal, since I see the threat of asymmetrical warfare as he evidently does, though maybe I should have said so explcitly. Only I see little hope that we can return to treating it as a crime in the reasonably foreseeable future, which is a less far future than it used to be. There is, I think, a real problem of what this does long-term to our civil rights, & to our government’s foreign activities, as more aggressive strategies become built into the culture of our security agencies. And in the wrong hands…etc.
zhermit –
Well, no insults here, so I’ll take a shot at replying.
First I have a hard time imagining what Go after terrorists where you can – not necessarily with an invasion force, but with a special strike force led by real intelligence – humint, which we haven’t tried to develop for over 20 years. looks like. We dropped humint 20 years ago because we got uncomfortable with partnering with arms and drug dealers and other unsavory types – which is sadly necessary to play in that arena. I’d probably agree with the need for more humint and the foolishness of the ‘high horse’ moral position that led us there. Now explain how your ‘strike force’ works. We send A-teams into foreign countries to kill identified terrorists? There’s a prohibition on that in our law, and the foreign countries might get kinda hincky about our troops covertly wandering around and killing and capturing people.
I’m also someone who sees the IMF as primarily acting in the interests of banks that hold foreign debt; their track record is certainly mixed, but that’s another discussion. And while I don’t share Trent’s view of NGO’s as Tools of Eeeevil, I do think that for many things NGO’s are better at giving progressive, middle-class First World kids jobs and providing career outlets for the products of Third World universities.
“it is far too easy to accuse someone of terrorist actions” – so how exactly does this square with your concrete proposal above?
Back to the Emerald Tower, I think…
A.L.
The IMF tries to be like methadone programs are supposed to be. I’m not sure even methadone programs are like they’re supposed to be. If it’s a bad analogy, chalk it up to my being neither doctor nor economist. Anyway some countries seem to have been better off rejecting or being rejected by the IMF.
Three thousand dead in a heap of rubble in downtown Manhattan in the middle of the work week.
What is with these people? Wake up! Wake the hell up! Were you with the idiots who thought they would stop at a dozen? Or the idiots who thought that a few hundred was little concern? Certainly not enough to barge into their lands and muck up their culture, traditions, and governments just for a teeny, tiny increase in our safety, right? Or the idiots who think that they’ll stop at a few thousand? Well they won’t Kevin. They wouldn’t stop at ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million, ten million, a hundred million, or a billion either. Nor is it implausible in the slightest that they could kill a million or ten million or more. WMD terrorism is already old hat bud. Sarin, radiological murders, anthrax, it’s all been done. It’s just a matter of time before some bunch of jerk-offs hits the winning combination and pulls off a successful chemical or biological weapon attack which actually kills a hell of a lot of people. At least it would be if they are given the opportunity. And we’ve only just barely started doing what needs to be done to fix the problem and deny them the opportunity. We’ve got our foot in the door, that’s all. We have the chance now. But only the chance. Even if we try our hardest there’s no guarantee that it’ll work.
This stuff is serious. It’s not just penny-ante crap like Haiti or even, really, Kosovo. These terrorists aren’t just operating on their own, they have a lot of support from powerful individuals and even state governments. Terrorists who were effectively working for the Iranian government have already killed hundreds of American civilians and soldiers. The same applies for the Syrian, Lybian, former Iraqi, and former Afghani regimes (with varying body counts, of course). Make no mistake, we’re at war, have been at war, and will continue to be at war for some time, and the stakes are high. This is every bit as serious as the Cold War or WWII. If we fail to act, or if we falter, or if unforseen complications arise then very serious consequences might result. There is little chance of us “losing” in the same manner as we might have lost against the Soviets, but there is a very real chance of a grevious injury to America, our allies, our interests, or to the nations, cultures, and lands of our enemies. If we stumble we may well be forced to guarantee with nuclear weapons and massive destruction of the Muslim and Arab world that we will not lose.
(P.S. Trent, terrorist effectiveness hasn’t really hit any such upswing recently, it’s been pretty constant over the last two or three decades. What has increased, I think, is the number of soldiers and the size and capabilities (and funding) of terrorist organizations, and you’d expect greater effects from that greater force. If you look at the ratio of deaths to terrorists involved in an attack you’ll get fairly similar ratio ranges out of Beirut, Khobar, OKC, 9/11, etc. 3,000 died on 9/11 but that was for 19 terrorists, so that’s only about 160 per terrorist, which is roughly the same ratio as Beirut, Khobar, or OKC. One could argue, of course, that if the 9/11 terrorists had been just slightly luckier or smarter they could have killed many more, by putting all 4 planes into downtown NYC, for example, but that applies to other attacks as well (WTC ’93 actually had a higher possibility of killing all the people in one or both towers than 9/11, for example). And there’s no guarantee that they won’t be able to increase their effectiveness in the future, even the near future (through WMDs especially).)
I would like some of you rabid warriors to explain clearly just once why we did not go to war with the terrorist state of Saudi Arabia. (How many exactly of the 9/11 perps Iraqis? Or even trained in Iraq? Umm exactly zero.)
& follow it up with an explanation why it’s good for us to let N. Korea move ahead, boasting of WMD production. (& should we decide to confront them, who exactly is we, White Man? Overaged politicians, flashy jetboys, bloggers and instawhatevers? I don’t think so. Well, there’s always the draft, since enlistments seem to be dropping off precipitously as people learn the difference between the day to gruntwork and the movie version (Rah rah Jessica!)
& add in a dash of Pakistan while yr at it.
rur42: Well, I put a few thoughts about Saudi Arabia here, but it doesn’t completely answer your charge.
The best reason I can think of for not going to war with SA is, in fact, the oil. Because such a massive amount of the world’s oil comes from this place, reducing the government of SA to rubble would earn reprisals against the oil fields, since they’d rightly believe we’d take control of them anyway. They can’t really fight us, so we’d have to count on the possibility that they’d try to cripple the US and the world by laying siege to the miles and miles and miles of pipelines.
This does’t just mean higher prices at the pump. This means everything that uses oil for fuel, lubrication, production or as an intermediate input suddenly gets MUCH more expensive. It costs tons more to refrigerate foods being shipped across the ocean. Shipping goes up in multiples, so places that depend on imports for goods get hit pretty damn hard. Electricity production is reduced or gets massively expensive, with all its attendant problems. Manufacturing gets hit for every bit of machinery that needs lube, or for using oil as inputs into things like plastic (which the world uses a GREAT deal of in everything from medical implements to toys). Even temporarily reducing the world oil supply by 1/2 the amount that comes out of Saudi Arabia would make the 70s oil shocks seem tame.
Plus, we’d have to account for possible reprisals from other OPEC nations that would decide they’re doing ok with their oil, why not screw the US and the world by not increasing — or even reducing — their production levels.
People like to think oil matters mostly for people who want to drive 85 mph in a Hummer at 7mpg. For those people who need it for basic food production, it’s another matter.
N. Korea is another matter. I won’t crowd the comments here with that one.
I am not actually sure about just what approach is best versus Saudi Arabia or the dangerous elements in Pakistan. The removal of Saddam’s regime can reasonably be expected to help against Saudi Arabia, Syria, & Palestinian terrorist groups. It already appears to be doing so.
Generally, different countries require different approaches, not a conveyor-belt one-size-fits all approach. What’s more, as I already said, the various countries & groups are all simultaneous. They fit as pieces into a big dissonant picture, & action against one ramifies with regard to all. So each step has to be examined in terms of how it will or won’t worsen the larger situation & how it will or won’t improve it & will or won’t facilitate the further war against terror. To take a one-size-fits all approach would be disastrous & would reflect a criminal degree self-righteous recklessness. It would be disastrous to attempt to fight despotisms in chronological order solely according to their degree of evil. We must fight the war on terms optimal for us, our allies, & our troops at risk, in order to maximize feasibility & minimize casualties & the risk of mass horror. Certainly it would be warped to suggest that optimization is other than a crucial part of any ethical decision-making process about war. There is something viciously destructive in the suggestion that we should conduct the war against terror in a “more consistent” way that would in fact be directly counterproductive to it.
OK, I’ll take the bait.
Weapons systems will develop no matter what. They will be developed by friends and foes alike, and will be vulnerable in either situation to nefarious use. That’s just reality. I didn’t respond to that part because you’re accurate in it, ForNow.
It’s your prescriptions that I find contentious. We simply don’t have the resources to sustain the kind of attacks you envision – we can’t attack every despot whenever a few government officials believe they are a threat. It is precisely this kind of action that leads to more terrorism. Terrorists, especially of the extremist Islamic breed, don’t necessarily see the disposing of a ruler sympathetic to their cause as a devastating event. There are always more places to hide, more regions filled with strife to exploit.
Which brings me to my point about the IMF, and cutting aid to countries that don’t adopt its policies. Building social and economic justice in poorer nations is intrinsic to the defeat of terrorism, because the social inequalities that plague much of the world are the motivation for a lot of the world’s terrorism – or, at least, a great recruitment pitch. For example, it’s easy for bin Laden to draw on Arab anger over Iraqis killed by American troops or international sanctions, the Palestine question, or other injustices, real or perceived.
So we can fight the information war, and remove the recruiting impetus. In order to fight that battle, we have to ensure that we, or our allies in the government, private, or other sectors, are doing our best to eliminate it. Thus, enforce strict adherance to IMF programs, and make sure that they are designed to actually help the country in question. If not, starve the government, but help the citizens. If the citizenry sees help coming from an external source, it will look more to that source than to the government. This is how the Muslim Brotherhood, which, despite its valid charity work, has spawned several terrorist organizations, gained credibility. Governments, especially Arab governments that don’t have a tight rein on their population anyway, will notice their control slipping, and will do what they can to keep in power. This could mean terrorism, but proper diplomacy can (hopefully) efectively negate such avenues. ForNow, I definately agree with you that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to terrorism. I do believe, however, there is a general framework that we should follow, at the very least so that we have something to guide our actions. Moral consistency is most relevant when you are trying to develop an international image, which is intrinsic to the defeat of terrorism (keeping allies, defeating the pr war, etc.) Quick question, though: how does the removal of Saddam help Pakistan fight terrorism?
Armed Liberal, it’s interesting that you chastise me for insults, when you closed your response with one. No matter. I’m actually kind of shocked at how far you’ve swung to the right since you had your own site, but maybe I didn’t pay attention enough back then.
Anyway, we’ve been sending strike teams into other countries for years, laws or no laws. We’ve sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Yemen, bombed Sudan, etc. in the pursuit of terrorists. Strike teams are less likely to cause the kind of international dissent that a war that much of the world disagrees with does. Of course, they are likely to cause an international incident, and I admit that I’m not quite sure what to do about that. I realize that this whole idea isn’t necessarily fleshed out, but time, space, etc. restraints prevail.
To the article discussion-
One of the key elements to any terrorist fight is to have strict controls on who exactly is a terrorist. “Is the drug maker, who is obviously a horrible person, a terrorist?”:http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031770123475&path=!frontpage&s= And how can we be sure that we’re making the right decisions when we attack suspected terrorists?
That’s why I think terrorists should be persecuted somewhere between crime and war. An open criminal court offers too much leeway, a military tribunal offers too little. And I realize that the military strikes idea offers none. Admittedly, I don’t know how to balance out the two. I suspect, however, that it will be one of those double standards that will have to prevail.
OK, a discussion breaks out! Cool.
zhermit, you raise an array of points, so let me pick the ones I see as central and see where they go. First, please understand that I don’t think that uncertainty, as you’ve expressed it, is at all out of place in discussions like this. Personally, I’m much more comfortable in a discussion where the participants are free to say “I’m not sure exactly what it is but it seems kind of like this” than one filled with make-believe exactitude.
Here’s what I took as your core points:
1. Cutting off the roots of terrorism through economic development. “Which brings me to my point about the IMF, and cutting aid to countries that don’t adopt its policies. Building social and economic justice in poorer nations is intrinsic to the defeat of terrorism, because the social inequalities that plague much of the world are the motivation for a lot of the world’s terrorism – or, at least, a great recruitment pitch.”
2. Covert operations as the root of future policy. “…we’ve been sending strike teams into other countries for years, laws or no laws. We’ve sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Yemen, bombed Sudan, etc. in the pursuit of terrorists. Strike teams are less likely to cause the kind of international dissent that a war that much of the world disagrees with does. Of course, they are likely to cause an international incident, and I admit that I’m not quite sure what to do about that.”
3. Treatment of anti-terrorist campaigns and ROE and treatment of captured terrorist suspects. “..how can we be sure that we’re making the right decisions when we attack suspected terrorists?
That’s why I think terrorists should be persecuted somewhere between crime and war.”
I think those are pretty close to right; please correct me as necessary.
I think you’re wrong about 1) – i.e. the facts on the ground don’t support your case; I partially agree with 2), with a number of caveats; and I largely agree with you on 3). Let me flesh it out slightly.
This is getting long for a comment, so I’ll append four, each dealing with one point, and then a wrapup.
A.L.
1. Cutting off the roots of terrorism through economic development. “Which brings me to my point about the IMF, and cutting aid to countries that don’t adopt its policies. Building social and economic justice in poorer nations is intrinsic to the defeat of terrorism, because the social inequalities that plague much of the world are the motivation for a lot of the world’s terrorism – or, at least, a great recruitment pitch.”
From this article in TNR:
Other, similar studies abound, while I really can’t find any social science that contradicts them. Now this doesn’t mean that poverty isn’t a rationalization for terrorism; in fact, I think that the economic inequalities in the world are a large part of the moral, aesthetic revulsion that drives terrorism in my view. I’ve written a bunch about it, here, here, and here.
So I don’t think it is poverty that is the engine of terror, as much as “injustice”, which I put into quotes because it is the perception of injustice that I think is a component of the fuel that drives people toward terrorism.
Now I haven’t studies international economics a lot in a long time, but it seems to me that the history of the IMF isn’t one that would make me comfortable that it is an instrument of social justice as much as one in support of stable financial markets. There’s a lot to discuss there, but time, space, etc.
A.L.
zhermit — in re: using the IMF to fight terrorism.
This just really isn’t a plausible tactic. Economic inequality simply isn’t a driving force for terrorism. Even those groups who espouse Marxist-Leninist ideology resort to terrorism to demostrate the strength and reach of the working class. Most often, those people are recruited at universities, the home of the educated and priveleged (in so much as they don’t have to work for subsistence living). While I think it’s true that changes in economic position can result in a move towards certain forms of terrorism, it simply isn’t a causal factor on its own. The loans the IMF offers are almost always of the last-resort variety, keeping a country barely afloat, not enriching a specific class (though the need for a loan may well be because of exploitation by a class). It just wouldn’ be possible to starve the government and help the people — since both sides would have to be pretty much at the starvation point to qualify for IMF assistance. Besides, IMF regulations are simply attempts to get some fiscal responsibility in place — and has little to do with the populations. Inequality usually isn’t addressed–stopping the reckless printing of money, faulty bookkeeping, spending habits, etc. is.
Recruiting is usually easier among the moderately well off, since they are the ones who have fuzzier ideas about the sacrifice a commitment to terrorism requires, and overvalue their ability to enact change. The truly destitute see no hope at all. Throughout Africa there are horrendous wars being fought, but without much traditional “terrorism” (and I don’t classify things that make people afraid as terrorism). if inequality was a cause, then we should see more of it in places where inequality is the most pronounced. The poorest people in Ethiopia during its famines rarely if ever resorted to terrorism. There just wasn’t an ability. By contrast, Saudi Arabia operates a massive welfare state, such there is a massive group of people without work, but surviving just fine. SA is a much richer target for terrorist recruiting.
Arab anger over Iraq or Palestine focuses more on a perceived occupation rather than inequality. The Israelis are occupying Palestinian/Arab land unlawfully. Indians were occupying land that belonged to the Sikhs. Britain occupy Northern Ireland. Russia occupies Chechen/Muslim lands. And through “cultural imperialism” (which I don’t actually believe exists), the West and the US occupy most of the world. Bernard Lewis calls this sense of displacement in the Islamic world “shame” — for having lost preeminence. But whatever it’s called, it’s one of the most common features of all terrorism: the sense of displacement and a drive to regain/demonstrate control. The trouble is, the only complete solution that works in the minds of terrorists is retreat. But when kids in Iran smuggle in Motley Crue tapes and Jessica Simpson posters, how do you “get America out”?
More IMF money is simply more occupation, in the minds of people bent on seeing the world this way. It’s a handout from a corrupt world order, according to Islamic fundamentalists. No amount of aid to either the state or the people, however it is doled out, will be acceptible. Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Shining Path, Tamil Tigers — none of these are groups that look to their governments for support, or could be wooed away from their current tactics by third party loans. Nor would those they recruit from.
Moral consistency isn’t much help against those who think you’re immoral no matter what you do. No, we don’t have the resources, or the reason, to go after every dictator in the world. But there is good reason to confront the situation on the same grounds as those who initiated it: as a war.
Actually, A.L., you sum up what I mean about poverty and social injustice. One of the largest recruitment centers for Al Qaeda is London – where generally better off Muslims eventually are upset by the relative poverty of their friends and family back home. Besides recruitment, this is also a great means for raising money, whether the donator realizes its for terrorism or believes its simply going to help the poor.
I still think that this means that attacking poverty/injustice is the best way of cutting out support for terrorism. Without injustice, a large part of terrorist support, at least with the general populace (if not some extremists). Injustice and poverty often go hand in hand, but that doesn’t mean that one necessarily means another, or doesn’t. You linked to a survey* that discusses the effects of a lack of civil liberties, rather than poverty, on terrorist creation. I think it’s far too general. Saudi Arabia, for example, has great wealth, but a really low (and shrinking) per capita income. On the other hand, many of the Saudi 9/11 terrorists came from a region near the Yemenese border that has never fully accepted Saud family rule or control.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t fight social injustice. It’s just that poverty’s easier, and a more emotive cause for the terrorist support base. It’s easier to get support for poverty than for a lack of freedom when you’re a Salafi preacher. Remember, Islam requires Muslims to give charity to the less fortunate.
The IMF has had problems, of course. I just believe that internationalism is the best approach, lending legitimacy and garnering support from other countries so that we don’t have to bear the full burden. The problems of the IMF can be fixed; it’s always easier to reform than to create.
Forgive the sporadic nature of this post, but it’s late where I’m at, and I’m getting tired. I think there was more I was going to add, but I don’t remember anymore.
*I deliberately didn’t talk about the Palestine issue because I don’t classify it as international terrorism in the same way that Al Qaeda is international terrorism. (I still view it as terrorism, just a bit different.) There is a similar resurgence in support among middle class Hindus in India against Indian Muslims. I think both of these need to be viewed in their context, and the limited nature of their scope. Maybe I’ll talk more about what I mean later, since it would require me to go into a discussion on terrorism history, classification, etc.; in the meantime, I’m tired, and I’m going to bed.
I haven’t suggested that our policy be war against “every despot whenever a few government officials believe they are a threat.” In particular, the talk of the belief of “few government officials” is contentious & is an echo of even greater contentiousness regarding what “we feel” in your earlier post. But even substituting in place of those fanciful references the reality of the UN resolutions & US Congress’s approval, it is obviously not feasible. If there were no limits imposed by questions of feasibility, we could immediately invade & occupy Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., set about reforming their societies, repairing or improving their infrastructures, imposing democracy & personal, religious, & economic freedoms, eliminating bigotries (especially Muslim bigotry), & making everyone involved ecstatically happy in the process. But it’s not feasible.
There was a decrease in terrorism in 2002, despite the invasion of Afghanistan.
* Report Says Terror Attacks Declined Sharply Last Year*, by David Gollust, Voice of America, 30 Apr 2003.
BEGIN EXCERPT:
The State Department, in its annual report on global terrorism, says the number of terror attacks declined sharply last year due to increased international cooperation and resolve. Seven countries – Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan – were again listed as state sponsors of terrorism, though Iraq may soon come off the list.
The State Department says there were 199 terrorist attacks last year, a 44 percent drop from 2001 and the lowest figure in more than 30 years.
END EXCERPT.
Stiffened resolve, diligent diplomacy, & the demonstration of the will & ability to make war, help us in the fight against terrorism. Inaction clearly produces no pressure against terrorism. It appears rather to invite it. Of course some terrorists will increase recruitment & make other responses. They will attempt to fight us. But they will fight us one way or another no matter what we do.
Before the war in Iraq I spoke with a professional
historian who insisted that the Muslim street would explode throughout the Muslim world if we invaded. It did not explode, & those in the Muslim world with access to television learned at length that “their” news network Al Jazeerah lied hugely & did so in order to make Saddam look good.
Actually there are finite number of regions with more strife to exploit.
As terrorists are driven to remaining regions they will explore new possibilities. A connection between Saddam’s regime & Pakistani terrorists is no longer a possibility. The very reduction of terrorists’ options helps long-term in various ways to help Pakistan fight terrorism, to the extent that Pakistan really does so. It reduces the terrorists’ pool of options AND lets us devote more attention to their remaining options. Of course they will seek to discover or develop NEW options, but these will tend to be inferior to the options they already saw fit to rely on. As for more specific connections between Saddam & Pakistani terrorists, I wouldn’t know. And those things are good enough, in view of all the good it’s doing nearer to & in Iraq.
Given that I said “The removal of Saddam’s regime can reasonably be expected to help against Saudi Arabia, Syria, & Palestinian terrorist groups. It already appears to be doing so.” & didn’t single Pakistan out as a place where it would help in some specific way, I think my general answer is good enough to defend my argument anyway.
The IMF is not a proven reliable tool for economic improvement. Subjecting countries more harshly to it could be counterproductive & harm hundreds of millions of people. Improving economies by encouraging free speech & free enterprise it the right idea. A lot hangs on the success of Iraq because there could hardly be a better example, if it works, to be set before a cynical & suspicious Muslim world. It’s hard to know what to do about Pakistan economically, its government & economy are incredibly corrupt & are a sickness that has deeply infected the culture. Rule of law is not established by a piece of paper alone.
It is not very feasible to starve the government while feeding the people, when the government has its fingers in everything. Nor can the attempt to do so make much progress against the propaganda which a government, with its control of the media, will launch against us in that situation. And where the IMF fails or its measures lead to difficult economic adjustment, the governments will finger us as among the parties guilty of the people’s suffering. Capitalism itself comes under attack by extension from its supposed representative the IMF or private banks that have made big loans to those countries. Etc. Generally it is not social inequalities but some ideological explanations of social inequalities that motivate some comparatively well-off individuals in troubled societies to join the terrorist subculture. And what makes common people angry is not the idea that others have more but that they’ve been ripped off, particularly by those others.
Again, things like a successful renewal of Iraq will do more to improve politics & economics in nearby countries. The terrorists & despots want Muslims to think that Muslims need or can use terrorists. If the terrorists & despots show they can’t win the fight against us because we’re too damned big & strong, & if Muslims see that there is much in the Western alternative that works better even for Muslim societies, then that is better in the long run, because then the terrorists, the hatemongering mullahs, etc., are seen starkly to be useless. It’s been said many times, but it’s true, that worrying about an otherwise good policy’s making terrorists & despots angry, is merely to give in to them & to reward them & their games & to give them strategic ways to fight back. Strength & resolve impresses the Muslim world, including its cranky despots & its less ambitious dictators alike. As Bush said, perseverance is power. The bad guys will fear us & the less-bad or good guys will take greater seeming risks for us—as long as we by our strength & reliability reduce those risks. They are NOT culturally disposed to be impressed by our generosity & social services alone. They also need to be made aware that they can’t screw with us.
I think we have been morally about as consistent as we can be. We’ve certainly tried to look out for the common people! There probably already is a framework of some sort in place, though I don’t know what it is. Despots & terrorists are not safely in chains, as prisoners each to be treated according to his or her own just deserts. Even in an established legal system able to protect all parties involved including itself, the prosecution may strike deals with various prisoners in order to get them all one way or another, though the result is that justice will not be perfectly meted out in accordance with their true just deserts. And in the present case we’re talking about folks who were not even under our control when deals are made. Idi Amin just died after forced long retirement in Saudi Arabia. His punishment should have been much worse. It is in order for the very protection of people from war & bloodshed that such deals may be made. That’s a part of the kind of optimization that I mentioned. We are not all-powerful & must husband our resources. I do think the US could be clearer about that, but it’s clear that the Administration is averse to spotlighting how our awareness of our limits factor into our decisions. Anyway, we have strengthened international pressure against Mugabe, the dictatorship of Myanmar (Burma), & Charles Taylor of Liberia. For now, though, our hands are mostly tied with the process of dealing with the threats on our plate. We will have many troops in Iraq for a while, for instance.
I agree with you that moral consistency is most relevant when you are trying to develop an international image, which is intrinsic to the defeat of terrorism. For that very reason I prefer to fight the idea that we have displayed an unethical inconsistency, because this almost always sets the bar to a level that we cannot meet. We cannot morally have to do that which we cannot do at all. We can’t do everything, & we can’t do nothing.
Why not go after Saudi Arabia, you ask? Sounds good to me! Having Iraq taken care of helps a lot, too – makes the Saudis much easier to take care of.
Only question for me is timing and ideal means to choose. The Bush family seems to have more reservations and closer ties, though. One wonders why this hasn’t become more of an issue, but if you see terrorism as all about police action & poverty, well, you’ll miss stuff like the Saudi role every time and continue to do so. If you see it as a war, however… that opens the door to some very interesting questions the Democrats could be asking.
Pakistan is best dealt with via an America – India – Pakistan triangulation that keeps the pressure on for some action (we’ve bagged a few biggies thanks to them, we could have many more but let’s start there) and forces ISI state support to a lower level. Which is what’s happening now. Given their nuclear arsenal and situation with (also-nuclear armed) India, more forceful options at this time would be unwise to say the least.
zhermit said: “So, ForNow, it sounds like you’re saying that because we have power, and feel threatened, we should use it, and use it in a blunt force manner? And how is that going to not lead to more terrorists?”
Did fighting the Nazis make them angry? Did that anger in turn create more Nazis?
Discuss.
zhermit also said:: “Terrorism can’t necessarily be treated as war, because it is far too easy to accuse someone of terrorist actions – and far too easy for someone to be mistreated because of it. However, it is not simply a crime. It’s somewhere in the middle, but I’m not really sure where, or what that implies.”
This is why I hate the phrase “War Against Terror.” This is not a war against a military tactic. It is a war against Islamofascism in both its secular and theocratic varieties.
Islamofascists have already killed millions of people, zhermit. Millions. September 11 was just one act of a decades-long battle. (For starters read the tragic recent histories of Sudan, Algeria, Iraq, Iran.)
Skateboarding is not a crime and you do not know what you are talking about. I don’t care what you say about terrorism, but you do not need to disrespect something that lets us skaters express how we feel. You have the wrong idea about skateboarding and skateboarders, you are just like the rest of society, a bunch of stereotypical jerks who have no idea what they are talking about.
Quite possibly the longest discussion I’ve ever read that only had minimal amounts to actually do with terrorism. I was glad to see an innocent plea of defense by a true skater at the end. Overall, every made some valid points. But, comeon the premise of this article had nothing to do with skating except the title – and the PUN. But, actually skateing is no crime – terrorism is the true crime. Anyhow, if anyones looking for “Skate Shoes”:http://www.Skate-Shoes-X.com/ Check that out we’ve got free shipping – free returns and much more. Found this site while searching for skateboarding so – this post is somewhat related. Anyhow looks like this discussion has pretty much dried up as it is!