Photo Credit : Google
Wall Street Journal
8/15/06
”A Self-Defeating War” - By George Soros
The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British intelligence.
Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.
What makes the war on terror self-defeating?
• First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.
• Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.
• Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.
• Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.
Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.
With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.
Mr. Soros, a financier, is author of "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror" (Public Affairs, 2006).
_____________________________________________________
Reaching the Roots of Terrorism
Omer bin Abdullah
Terrorism enables the weak to confront the strong, and thus has an enduring appeal to those who are dissatisfied with the status quo. In addition, a relatively inexpensive action can have spectacular results, as we have seen in the aftermath of 9/11.
The Changing Nature of Terrorism
More than 2,000 years ago, Jewish Zealots assassinated their targets, the Roman occupiers, in broad daylight, often in crowded market places or on feast days. This was done to convey their message to the Roman occupiers and their Jewish sympathizers and collaborators. Between 1090 and 1272, the Assassins used similar tactics against the Christian Crusaders.
Until the French Revolution (1789-99), terrorism was justified mainly by religion. This situation changed, however, as nationalism, anarchism, Marxism, and other secular political movements emerged during the 1800s. Modern terrorism, initially antimonarchical, was embraced by rebels and constitutionalists during the late stages of the French Revolution and in Russia by the People¡¯s Will organization (1878-81). The revolutionary, antigovernment orientation of this latter group became the model for future terrorists. By selecting targets representing the state¡¯s oppressive instruments of power, its members embraced ¡°propaganda by deed¡± to educate the public about state-imposed inequities. One of its members assassinated Tsar Alexander II in March 1881.
On June 28, 1914, a young Bosnian Serb radical named Gavrilo Princip sought to free his country from Austrian rule by assassinating Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand. This act is usually credited with triggering World War I. His militant student group had close ties to the intelligence service and military forces of Serbia, Austria¡¯s archenemy. Like many contemporary state sponsors of terrorism, Serbia provided arms, training, intelligence, and other assistance to revolutionary movements in neighboring nations.
During the 1920s-30s, terrorism became more associated with dictatorial states. The word terrorism was used to describe the wanton violence and intimidation inflicted by the Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the totalitarian USSR. Recent history records the use of such measures by the military dictatorships of Argentina, Chile, and Greece during the 1970s. But these state-sanctioned acts of violence are more generally termed terror to distinguish them from violence committed by nonstate entities. The word terrorism is generally reserved for acts committed by groups outside of government.
After World War II, terrorism reverted to its previous revolutionary associations. During the 1940s-50s, terrorism was used for violence perpetrated by indigenous nationalist and anticolonialist organizations that fought European colonial rule. The most spectacular terrorist incident was the 1946 bombing of Jerusalem¡¯s King David Hotel by the Irgun Zvai Le¡¯umi (National Military Organization), a Jewish underground group. The hotel served as the military headquarters and offices of the British administration in Palestine. The Irgun¡¯s commander at the time was Menachem Begin, future prime minister of Israel and the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner.
During the late 1960s and 1970s, various disenfranchised or exiled nationalist minorities embraced terrorism to draw attention to their plight and generate international support. A Palestinian group is credited with initiating the current era of international terrorism: On July 22, 1968, three armed Palestinians belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an international Israeli El Al commercial flight for purely political reasons to create an international crisis and generate publicity.
Also during the late 1960s and early 1970s, North and South American, as well as western European, political extremists began to form terrorist groups that opposed American intervention in Vietnam and what they claimed were fundamental socioeconomic inequities of the modern capitalist liberal-democratic state. Germany¡¯s Baader-Meinhof Gang and Italy¡¯s Red Brigades received training at Palestinian camps in the Middle East. Right-wing, or neo-fascist and neo-Nazi, terrorism movements also appeared in many western European countries and the U.S. during the late 1970s in response to left-wing violence. However, they lacked the numbers and popular support enjoyed by their left-wing counterparts, and so their violence was mostly sporadic and short-lived.
Justifications and Definitions
Regardless of the methods employed, terrorism is by nature political because it involves acquiring and using power to force others to submit to terrorist demands via publicity, focusing attention on the organization, fear, and intimidation. Thus, terrorism¡¯s success is best measured by its ability to attract attention to the terrorists and their cause and by its psychological impact.
Terrorists typically justify their acts by citing exclusion from, or frustration with, the accepted processes of engendering political change. They maintain that terrorism is the only option left, although their choice is a reluctant ¡ª even a regrettable ¡ª one. Whether one agrees with this justification often depends upon where one¡¯s sympathies lie, for ¡°One man¡¯s terrorist is another man¡¯s freedom fighter.¡±
Both national and international law have defined terrorist acts as crimes. Even during war, deliberate violence against innocent civilians is considered a crime. Similarly, violence that spreads beyond an acknowledged geographical theater of war and thus violate the territory of neutral or noncombatant states is also deemed a war crime.
Legal statutes regard terrorism as a crime. Yet there is considerable variation in how these laws define terrorism. A U.S. federal statute defines terrorism as ¡°violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.¡± [United States Code, Title 18, Section 2331 (18 USC 2331)]. The FBI defines terrorism as ¡°the unlawful [emphasis added] use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.¡±
In broad terms, its causes usually can be traced to political oppression, cultural domination, economic exploitation, ethnic discrimination, and religious persecution. Perceived inequities in the distribution of wealth and political power have led some terrorists to attempt to overthrow democratically elected governments. To achieve a fairer society, they would replace these governments with socialist or communist regimes. Germany¡¯s Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy¡¯s Red Brigades, and the Weather Underground in the U.S. worked for this aim. Some seek to fulfill what they consider a divinely inspired or millennialist (related to the end of the world) cause. The Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, falls into this category. Others embrace comparatively more defined and comprehensible goals, such as re-establishing a national homeland (e.g., Basque separatists in Spain) or unifying a divided nation (Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland). Other terrorists are motivated by specific issues, such as opposing legalized abortion or nuclear energy, or championing environmental concerns and animal rights.
At times, national governments have aided terrorists to further their own foreign policy goals. So-called state-sponsored terrorism, however, falls into a different category altogether, for it is considered a form of covert (secret) warfare, a means to wage war secretly through the use of terrorist surrogates (stand-ins) as hired guns. Such sponsorship has proven invaluable to some terrorist organizations, for it allows them to obtain arms, money, and a safe haven, among other things, and thereby become more powerful and menacing opponents. It also can place at terrorists¡¯ disposal the resources of an established country¡¯s diplomatic, military, and intelligence services, and thereby improve the training of terrorists and facilitate planning and operations. Finally, governments have paid terrorists handsomely for their services, which enables them to present a greater threat to their opponents.
Suicide attacks differ from other terrorist operations, because the perpetrator¡¯s own death is a requirement for success. Suicide bombers, therefore, are typically highly motivated, passionately dedicated individuals who decide voluntarily or upon persuasion to surrender their lives to fulfill their mission. Palestinians, lacking a means of self-defense, have increasingly resorted to the tactic to keep pressure on the occupation forces.
The American Definition
Efforts to eradicate terrorism usually fail because the international community cannot agree on a definition. Now, however, America¡¯s definition is beginning to take hold. On the day after 9/11, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1368, which reaffirmed the UN¡¯s commitment ¡°to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts¡±; recognized the ¡°inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the [UN] Charter¡± against terrorism; and unequivocally condemned ¡°in the strongest terms¡± the September 11 attacks. Two weeks later, Security Council Resolution 1373 was approved. It called for the prevention and suppression of terrorism financing and greater exchange of the operational information needed by UN member-states to fight terrorism.
American leadership, owing to various pressures, is not ready to accept that terrorism is a reaction to injustice. Presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), talking on ¡°Face the Nation,¡± said that to win the war on terrorism, the U.S. needs much more that an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation ¡ª it needs ¡°the most robust, aggressive, forceful foreign policy.¡±
This ¡°forceful¡± foreign policy is not about enforcing justice, but about using the big stick to suppress any reaction to injustice. He wants the U.S. to engage in governing Muslim countries due to his belief that terrorism results from widespread unemployment, and ¡°as long as they are educated in schools which teach them to hate, to hate Israel, to hate us, and to give them the capacity to become terrorists, we need to change that relationship.¡±
Senator Joe Biden, (D-DE), ranking member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed similar views on May 25 on ¡°Meet the Press.¡± He blamed Saudi textbooks, declaring, ¡°You cannot allow state-run newspapers, you cannot allow the school system you run to preach hatred, to preach anti-Semitism, to preach anti-Western notions and then expect us to say that they¡¯re cooperating with us¡¡±
The same selective thinking is being propagated by academia. Jerrold Post, who founded the CIA¡¯s Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, interviewed 21 people held in Israeli and Palestinian prisons, told the American Psychiatric Association¡¯s annual meeting on May 22 that Palestinians have ¡°basically been bred to hate from very early on.¡±
Conclusion
The U.S. has placed itself in a corner: It insists that other governments stop, prevent, and even help it to fight terrorism, and yet arms such practitioners of state terrorism as Tel Aviv.
Today, terrorism refers to those whom the U.S. dislikes, especially Muslims, or who work against a U.S. ally-of-the-moment. Thus, the war of liberation in Chechnya is terrorism against Russia, the war of liberation in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) is terrorism against China, and the movement for self-determination in Kashmir is terrorism against India.
The change of definition and the high-powered media beating the official drums are meaningless, because the ground reality says that justice is being denied. This is where the difference between peace and forced acceptance counts. Even official U.S. occupation, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, cannot extinguish this reality.
_____________________________________________
Ex-Malaysian premier still says 9/11 inside job
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:56:06 GMT
Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad has once again stated that the September 11 attacks were a staged event, rejecting claims that his comments are a publicity stunt.
“What do I gain from a publicity stunt? I am merely going by a public statement. I am not going to be a Prime Minister anymore unless you (pointing to a journalist) want me to ...” the former Malaysian prime minister told reporters on Friday.
After watching a three-hour video of the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, Mohamad, had suggested earlier in his blog that the twin towers had collapsed “demolition style.”
Later on Friday, Mahathir also called on local television stations to show the three-hour video.
"It sounds logical to me. Until today, you cannot even find scraps of the plane that crashed into the World Trade Centre and there is no picture of the other plane, which was supposed to crash.”
"The way the tower came crashing down was also funny. People who saw it were also not ordinary people. They were professional engineers and what they say is quite credible.”
"I wish some television stations would consent to show the video as it is not long and only three hours. You can then see what I saw."
Mahathir also said some people were afraid of saying anything critical about the governments of powerful countries or accusing them of doing something wrong.
"But the government of powerful countries said lies to go to war,” he added
"I have great respect for the Arabs but for them to hijack four planes is not very Arab. Just imagine the amount of planning that would be involved."
Rejecting claims that he was being insensitive to the victims, Mahathir stressed that he was "being more sensitive to the victims" as he was saying the attacks were carried out "deliberately.”
The former Malaysian prime minister also said that his views about how 9/11/2001 attacks were carried out would not affect Malaysia's chances of attracting foreign investment.
"I have said this many times even when I was the prime minister. But we still have the foreign direct investment. However, we cannot rely on foreign direct investments alone. We must build on our own system," he said.
Mahathir made the comments at a debut held for a book titled Civilizations, Nomadic Migrations, Empires and The Trail of Islam, at the Islamic Arts Museum in Kuala Lumpur.
The book which entails the history of mankind, origin and commonality of major religions, is authored by Syed Salem Albukhary.
MJ/HGH/MMN
No comments:
Post a Comment