Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

« The (Continuing) War on Terror: Some Sense from India | Main | Iran: A Nation Of Bloggers »
Wednesday
Dec032008

The (Continuing) War on Terror: Let's Kill All the Crazies

Later today, Enduring America's inaugural podcast will be on the following topic:

The Washington Post proposes, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, "a crackdown on terrorists".

But how shall we crack down on terrorists? Certainly not by treating them as rational and thus understanding how they could justify these killings --- for David Aaronovitch, "There isn't anything - whatever the explanatists say - we can concede to the zealots of Faridkot that will persuade such people, once radicalised, not to try to kill us. " Certainly not through any process of international law, enforcement, or co-operation, as Robert Kagan argues --- apparently oblivious of the consequences, including the possible reinforcement of "terror", of US bombing and targeted assassination amongst local populations --- we should be "establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted".

By treating the terrorists solely as men and women "brainwashed by an ideology of hatred", we can adopt violent measure in response, set aside any notion of law, morality, and ethics, and conduct a war without end. Indeed, we can honour ourselves for doing so. As William Kristol advocates, we can "be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror", be this through waterboarding, surveillance, rendition, and even assassination --- "but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points".*

President Bush, in his apology which wasn't really an apology this week, said, "I wish the intelligence had been different" on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If the intelligence had been different - in other words, if it could have magically produced those WMDs --- then there would have been a rational basis for an invasion to overthrow the evil and irrationality of Saddam Hussein.

Maybe five years from now, an Aaronovitch or Kagan or Kristol --- after there is more violence, more terrorism, more conflict --- will admit some recognition that your enemy is rational and that he/she sees a cause for their violence. Maybe they will recognise that dealing with the cause, while it may or may not deter a particular individual from his/her path, will in long run drain the swamp that supports the mosquitoes.

Then again, probably not.

*Not-so-tangential note: Like Kagan, Kristol has a warning for those who aren't patriotic enough to deal with the crazies in their midst:

"In a nation like Pakistan, the government will have to be persuaded to deal with those in their midst who are complicit. This can happen if those nations’ citizens decide they don’t want their own country to be dishonored by allegiances with terror groups. Otherwise, other nations may have to act."

Reader Comments (8)

There is only one way they understand - force. Of course that force will provoke more Terrorism, but we must use force until the Terrorists are wiped out. This is the only way!

December 3, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterShimshon

Force is always counter-productive as has been obvious in the rise of Anti-Amercanism around the world particularly in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Terrorists are not deviod of objectives and the support groups. So, by thinking that carrying out Targetted Bombings as US is doing in case of Pakistan will end up or dry the support that these people have is simply too unrealistic. What needs to be done is to craft and institute a comprehensive strategy that involves changes in Afghnaistan situation and in Pakistan areas through the engagement of the people on ground. Here, trusting the allies is a missing part that US needs to look at serously!

December 3, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterShabana

As in all things, the best response to a problem is to remove the source that fuels it, rather than merely attack the symptoms.

In the case of international terrorism, this means seeking to identify the fundamental complaints that motivate terrorist movements and considering a coherent, strategic response to these root causes. Yes, that means recognising that the terrorists are people just like and that they have their own worldview, which - while perhaps at odds with our own - is rational given their circumstances and perspective.

It doesn't take a masters degree to realise that one of these key issues is the ongoing failure to make any headway in Israel/Palestine. This is undoubtedly going to be a painful process for both parties, but is an essential step towards reducing the threat of ongoing violence in the region and beyond. (Of course, by invading Iraq, the US-UK has created a second source of inspiration for Islamists, which - while not as influential as the Israel/Palestine issue - still promises to spawn an ongoing culture of violence).

December 3, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSam Markey

Maybe five years from now, an Aaronovitch or Kagan or Kristol — after there is more violence, more terrorism, more conflict — will admit some recognition that your enemy is rational and that he/she sees a cause for their violence. Maybe they will recognise that dealing with the cause, while it may or may not deter a particular individual from his/her path, will in long run drain the swamp that supports the mosquitoes.

-----------------------------------

How should we deal with the cause? Al-Qaeda wants to set up a grand caliphate, and Islamic radicals in the West want to redefine the cultural and political landscape of Europe. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8NK2CIqUgFE

Problems:

1. The radicals are the loudest voices in Islam today.

2. The rest are afraid to speak out against them because of
A. Fear
B. Tribal solidarity

How should we deal with that?

December 3, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave

Force is always counter-productive as has been obvious in the rise of Anti-Amercanism around the world particularly in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

-------------------------------

Europe was upset with Bill Clinton's foot dragging during the 1990s Balkan wars and pushed the US to take action. The US-European relationship is like a man (US) having to deal with a catty woman (Europe).

December 3, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave

"Europe was upset with Bill Clinton’s foot dragging during the 1990s Balkan wars and pushed the US to take action. The US-European relationship is like a man (US) having to deal with a catty woman (Europe)."

The counterpoint here being that the Balkans crisis was a legitimate international concern; a problem with its roots in the sixteenth century and revitalised by the collapse of the stabilising power of the Communist regime. The region was already in crisis, but a response from the international community (led by the US) was logical and constructive.

However, the justification for other American ventures has been less obviously legitimate - certainly Iraq was subject to a dictatorship, but it was stable and there was no immediate threat (contrary to reports at the time). Meanwhile, active conflicts with massive humanitarian costs continue to rage throughout eastern Africa and the US shows little interest in intervention. Even the widely-endorsed campaign against the Taliban was 'put on the back-burner' while the US pursued its own personal interests in Iraq...

Its not that Europeans are capricious in our support / disdain of the US. It’s the fact that the US likes to present itself as a moral power, intervening to curb ‘evil’ and expecting to be praised and adored for doing as much, and yet its often clear that there is an ulterior motive behind the campaign – not so much moral as economic and ideological. Were this not the case, surely we would have seen more US involvement in the forgotten war zones of Rwanda, DR Congo, Somalia etc etc…?

December 4, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSam Markey

Sure it was a legitimate international concern, but military action wasn't necessary. Serbia was prepared to go along with the Rambouillet Agreement, but NATO made unrealistic demands which left Serbia with no choice but to reject the final draft. What was the ulterior motive in this case?

'NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.'

----------------------

In commentary released to the press, ex-secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared that

"The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form."

—Henry Kissinger on Daily Telegraph, June 28th 1999

December 5, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave

"Meanwhile, active conflicts with massive humanitarian costs continue to rage throughout eastern Africa and the US shows little interest in intervention. "

------------------

Africa is a different case - tribalism. I think it is best for the US to avoid direct military involvement in tribal conflicts.

Also, the number of victims you hear about in Bosnia (250,000) is probably an exaggerated figure.

December 7, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>