War, Terror, and the Death of Freedom
by Paul Roasberry
As
I stand at that saddle on the ridge where my years of life-already-lived far
exceed the years of life yet-to-be-lived, rage fades to sorrow and hatred ebbs
into melancholia. I am weary of the
fight; humanity is an embarrassment. I
thirst simply for peace on a blasted-out, war-parched desert.
Once
I had friends, lots of friends who shared my fury against the American crimes
in Viet Nam. Where have they gone? What have they become? Apart from a handful, they are grown fat
with success, complacent in their responsibilities, soaped and barbered and
turned out as caricatures of everything they once despised. Sealed hermetically against any possible
infection of moral outrage, against any stink of unwanted realities, their
bottoms padded in soft leather, they swish through ghettos of despair in tight,
expensive, spotless and gleaming new automobiles. Mumbling inane platitudes, they thrive in a world where Dylan and
Lennon have decayed almost unrecognizably into supermarket Musak
But
here I stand, receding hairline, bad teeth, arthritic knees and all, still
astonished at the intrinsic worthlessness, at the utter tragic waste that
warfare represents. In my sad life I
have made my own way through impetuous decisions, some good, some bad; I have
become a father, a homeowner, a small businessman. I have suffered losses – the loss of my marriage, the loss of my
youth, the loss of sight in one eye, the loss of passion. I have suffered terrors – the terrors of
being arrested for crimes I never committed, the terrors of watching my
daughter navigate a life-warping emotional minefield in the aftermath of the
now notorious massacre at her high school, the black-velvety dark terror of
blindness caused by a detached retina.
And several times a week now, I am pursued by nameless terrors in my
sleep, and I awaken, screaming, trying to make sense of the anxious crying of
my cat Penelope as she huddles just outside my bedroom door. I have pains in my chest and I feel exhausted
most of the time. In my life, I have
been medicated and locked up against psychosis and bi-polar disorder. I have slashed my wrist, swallowed too many
pills, puked into the half-frozen dirty slush of too many January gutters.
Thirty-four
winters ago, I was still young. My
comrades and I used to draw clever parallels between our own government and
that of the German Nazis. But somewhere
deep in my heart, I only half believed then that my country was skidding
inevitably into totalitarianism. We were only playing a kind of game; I perceived
hope in the natural tendency of the few of us to rebel, to revolt. I felt that conditions could never reach the
point that they actually have reached today, and I now wonder where we could
have stopped it. The slow, incremental
erosion of liberty that we once had to squint at in order to diagnose has
become an avalanche. And like an
avalanche, it is unstoppable; one can only hope to skirt it in time or, if hit
by it, to swim on its surface until it runs itself out.
In
1964 I first read Orwell’s 1984. It was
a work of fiction, then. It was a
nightmare vision. Television screens
that could monitor the audience, helicopters snooping into high rise windows,
the daily Five Minutes’ Hate, the scapegoat Goldstein who was responsible for
all evil everywhere, the Memory Hole –
thrilling fantasies for a fifteen-year-old boy, but all of them have come to
pass, and worse. Advances in technology
have rendered privacy all but a relic of the past. And notwithstanding the easy access to information made possible
by computers and the Worldwide Web, citizens remain as ignorant, as addicted to
sanitized news, as eager to believe any martinet with a title, as they ever
were. The fog of “patriotism,” which
Samuel Johnson once characterized as “the last refuge of scoundrels,” has again
smothered us in groupthink.
Those who oppose war are silenced and threatened in the name of a
“democracy” that vanished long ago. War
is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and now,
Democracy is Dictatorship. In
the name of “liberty,” latter-day Nazis launch their blitzkriegs, following
Hitler’s words of “justification” almost to the letter.
I
shut my eyes. I focus my mind on what
I’ve just re-read. The year was
1939. After seizing Czechoslovakia and
Austria without having to fire a shot, on the first day of September Der Fuhrer
addressed the troops he had massed along the Polish border. He said,
“The
Polish government, unwilling to establish good neighborly relations as aimed at
by me, wants to force the issue by way of arms. Several acts of frontier violation, which cannot be tolerated by
a great power, show that Poland is no longer prepared to respect the Reich’s
frontiers.”
I
think: with only minor substitutions, changing “Polish” to “Iraqi”, “frontier
violations” to “manufacturing weapons of mass destruction” and “Reich’s
frontiers” to “our national security,” for instance, gives us a speech that
could have been delivered by George W. Bush.
Go
back a page or two. On the previous
evening, Hitler released Directive No. 1 for the Conduct of War:
“Now
that all the political possibilities of disposing by peaceful means of a
situation on the Eastern Frontier which is intolerable for Germany are
exhausted, I have determined on a solution by force.”
Not
the Reichstag, not he and his advisors, not the Nazi Party. He, Adolf Hitler, launched World War Two
that night of August 31 - September 1, 1939.
I
think: despite widespread protests at
home, and despite even more massive opposition from so-called “allies” of the
United States abroad, George W. Bush, and he alone, has decided, unilaterally,
personally, to invade another country that never attacked the United States,
never invaded the United States, never even threatened to do so.
And
just as there were never really any “frontier violations” by the Poles – only
the staged-for-the-newspapers incursions of German troops clad in Polish
uniforms – so there are no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. The U.N. inspectors found none. And any that are suddenly “discovered” by
American troops must forever remain as suspect as the myriad handguns that are
routinely planted by police who mistakenly gun down unarmed suspects. In fact, there’s even a term for such
planted weapons: throwdowns
Every savvy cop carries one in the trunk of his squad car, wiped clean
of prints, serial numbers filed off.
What,
after all, is a “weapon of mass destruction?”
Iraq is a desert; it is beset with sandstorms and wind. Poison gas has a very limited effectiveness
here; you could kill as many people with a hand grenade as you could with a gas
cannister. Or is a “weapon of mass
destruction” more accurately a 3500 pound
laser-guided American blockbuster bomb exploding in a crowded marketplace? You decide.
I see potential weapons of mass destruction every day – passenger
airliners, gasoline tanker trucks, railroad cars loaded with ammonium nitrate
fertilizer. And notwithstanding all
this, the only mass destruction being committed in Iraq is being committed by
American and British troops. It is not
a fair fight; Iraqi casualties outnumber allied casualties by several hundred
-to-one. The last time the United States
achieved this kind of body count ratio was at the “Battle” of Wounded Knee. This “war” more closely resembles the Sand
Creek Massacre, or perhaps the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto. This is not war; it is extermination.
So
let’s ask an Iraqi widow about mass destruction.
I
want to address some words to those ninnies who still preach that I have a
“voice,” that it really matters what ordinary citizens think. People all over the world are pleading for a
halt to this madness, and average Americans scarcely comprehend the magnitude
of opposition. As to these other beings,
these other citizens of the world – do their voices not count? At the outbreak of this war in Iraq, here is
a small sampling of the news I’ve culled from international Internet news
services:
Syrian
people in the city of Aleppo and the city of Daraa demonstrated today
expressing anger and condemnation against the American and British war on Iraq.
. . . In Egypt and Syria, thousands of protesters vented their fury at the
start of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, with some demanding the expulsion of
U.S. ambassadors. In Cairo, the Arab
world's biggest city, riot police used water cannons and batons against
hundreds of rock-throwing protesters who tried to storm towards the U.S.
embassy. . . . In Yemen, three Yemeni demonstrators and one security member
were killed yesterday and 18 demonstrators and other 7 Yemeni police members
were wounded in violent confrontations in the surrounding of the US embassy in
Sanaa, according to Yemeni security sources and the Yemeni Red Crescent Society
at the site of the clashes . . . . Some 100,000 Moroccans took to the streets Sunday
in downtown Rabat, Morocco's capital city, to protest war threats against Iraq.
Marchers waved banners reading "World Peoples for Peace,"
"Aggression against Iraq is Aggression against all Arab nations,"
"Save the children of Iraq," and other anti-war slogans. Parallel
marches were organized on Sunday in the cities of Mohammedia (near Casablanca),
Tangier and Tetuan in the north . . . . Several world capitals witnessed
yesterday demonstrations of protest against the war the USA started against
Iraq, under expectations of observers of increased demonstrations to cover most
parts of the world . . . . In Cairo, al-Jazira TV station reported that some
150 persons were wounded in the clashes between the police and thousands of
Egyptian demonstrators, while demonstrations continued in al-Tahrir (
liberation) square in Cairo where students of the American university of Cairo
gathered with other demonstrators who tried later on to reach the American
embassy . . . . The demonstrators also called on the Arab governments to
announce "Jihad " and send Arab armies to Baghdad to defend Iraq and
its people. The demonstrators burnt American flags and raised Iraqi and
Palestinian flags . . . . A similar demonstration took place in London where
the British prime minister Tony Blair is witnessing a difficult position under
the escalated war against Iraq . . . Meantime, thousands of Syrians
demonstrated in Damascus. They chanted slogans denouncing the US President George Bush whom they described as a war criminal
and they chanted against the leaders of the Arab states allied with the US and
described them as "traitors" and "worshippers of the US
dollars." The demonstrators tried, uselessly, to arrive in the American
embassy but were prevented by the police . . . . Just three hours after the
American missiles fell on Baghdad, more than 40,000 Australians headed for the
streets expressing their protest against the war led by Washington against Iraq
in which their country is taking part . . . . . In Athens, some 80 to 100 thousands
citizens demonstrated demanding the halt of war against Iraq. Similar demonstrations were held in
Indonesia, Jakarta since the first minutes of the American attack against Iraq.
Thousands of Indonesians gathered in front of the American embassy in Indonesia
and the Islamic groups threatened Washington of large scale campaigns of
protest in all parts of the Islamic world . . . . Hundreds of anti- war
partisans gathered in front of the White House as an expression of their
rejection of the war against Iraq. They called on the American president to
return back to peace and to stop the war which they described as
"inhuman." . . . Meanwhile, Tens of thousands of citizens and
students in Arab and foreign countries participated in large mass demonstrations
condemning the aggressive war on Iraq.
The demonstrators in Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Spain and in other countries
raised flags and slogans denouncing the US-British war on Iraq and calling for
peace and stopping the war. . . . Thousands of students demonstrated in
Cairo University yesterday protesting against the American- British war on
Iraq.. . . In the London Suburb of Million Keynes, the Greens party have called
on consumers to boycott 330 American products ranging from Mars bars to Gap
jeans and American films on DVD and Video.
. . . In Zurich, travel agents said some clients who usually take
holidays in the United States are changing their destinations. . . . Some of
the most loyal customers who have been traveling to the United States for years
have changed their plans because they don't like what Bush is doing. . . . In
Pakistan, thousands demonstrated today against the American- British invasion
of Iraq. Demonstrators burnt the American flag and pictures of George Bush and
Tony Blair carrying placards written on them "human blood is much more
precious than the oil.". . .Thousands of Thai people also demonstrated
protesting against the aggressive war against Iraq. Demonstrators stressed that
they want to reveal to the whole world the reality of the war calling for
boycotting the American goods.
This
is an ominous warning of what is to come.
Bush’s tanks and smart bombs and almost ludicrously superior
technological war-making capabilities notwithstanding, there will be a
continuing history after this war is “won,” and as the saying goes, “the opera
isn’t over until . . . .”
* * * * * *
The
Great Debate in the United States now centers around whether one can oppose the
war against Iraq and still “support the troops.” So fearful are average Americans of not appearing to be “behind
our guys in uniform” that they quail at any inference that they might not be
patriotic. Absurdity has reached new
extremes. We might as well envision
Germans in 1939 worrying about whether they could “oppose” the annexation of
Poland and still “support” the valiant thugs who bombed, strafed and beat the
living snot out of the Polish defenders. Supporting Our Troops is about
as pathetic an apology for opposing our presence in Iraq as you can conceive. You might as well be proud of your son when he beats up a
paraplegic at school. If war is a
fistfight, the military action in Iraq is gang rape.
The
whoring press, more complicit in the Bush Blitzkrieg than it ever was in any
other war, supports the tragic farce, avoids the obvious questions, and
willingly assists in the publication of lies and falsehoods. Saddam Hussein is a monster because he has
gassed his own people, and yet friends of mine were blinded and choked by tear
gas in Colorado Springs in February for protesting against what was then only a
proposal to go to war. They were gassed
by their government. And if it
is immoral and against international “law” for Iraq to possess “weapons of mass
destruction,” including biological weapons, explain to me why the Anthrax that
appeared in the U.S. mails shortly after “9/11" happened to have been
manufactured in a U.S. military research facility. If such weapons have been “outlawed,” what the hell was the U.S.
doing with stockpiles of what were then described as “weapons grade
anthrax?”
During
the initial days of the Iraq war, American reporters announced in breathless
excitement that a cache of protective suits and masks “proved” that Iraq was
planning chemical warfare.
This
made about as much sense as claiming that a man with a burglar alarm in his
home was contemplating a break-in at his neighbor’s house. Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief arms inspector, said that “the presence of 300
chemical suits and masks could not prove that Iraq (was) holding chemical weapons
. . . . Iraq could have arranged suits to meet any chemical attack threat.”
The
world pretends to worry about an Iraqi atomic bomb, but ignores the simple
historical fact that only one country – yours and mine – ever used such a
weapon against civilian populations. We
used it twice, in fact. The Nagasaki
bomb landed a couple of blocks away from the Yamazato Elementary School and the
Hiroshima bomb practically landed on the roof of a Christian church. I leave it to you to conclude what the
American government, and its fawning press corps, would have to say about any
foreigners who bombed an elementary school in Nashville, let’s say, or a church
in Chicago.
The
whole fiction of “just wars” is laughable.
People die in wars. Children die
in wars. Arms and legs get blown off
people whose only crime was to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong
time. Calling such casualties
“collateral damage” is about as insulting to me as calling the deliberate
murders of Jews a “final solution to the Jewish problem.” You cannot sanitize wickedness and
wrongdoing by renaming it.
And
yet that is exactly what has happened.
All manner of atrocities have been glossed over, renamed, rendered
harmless by soothing words, by glib lies.
It is easier for Americans to overlook the naziism innate in their
government’s behavior when they are assured by talking heads that they are only
looking at “collateral damage,” “regrettable miscalculations” or “removing the
dead-enders.”
I
think that the final crushing blow to my morale came the day my daughter’s high
school became a killing field. This
event generated literally millions of pages of analyses, commentary, and
reportage. And yet, only once, buried
in the pages of a local newspaper, did I come across the one item of news that
placed the entire, outrageous day into perspective. For me, it explained everything.
Eric Harris had told an acquaintance, barely a week before the shooting
rampage, that he “wanted to go to Kosovo so he could kill a lot of people.”
Where
do children learn violence? Sorry,
not from Marilyn Manson. Not from
video games. Not from movies. They learn it from their own government, the
best role model for sadism, cruelty and gratuitous killing that you can find,
anywhere. They learn it from acts of
war – or, more appropriately for the current military engagement, from acts of
extermination.
******
After
September 11, 2001, Congress outdid itself in passing knee-jerk
“anti-terrorist” legislation – legislation which has since come to be known as
“the Patriot Act.” Consider the
following proposed war-time legislation:
And
be it farther enacted, that if any
person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be
written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist
or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and
malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or
either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the
United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of
the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them,
into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of
them, the hatred of the good people of the United States . . ., then such person, being thereof convicted
before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not
exceeding two years.
Your
initial reaction might be that the wording of such a bill subverts the intent
of the First Amendment, and you’d be right.
What are the odds of such a bill being passed? Slim, you might say, and you’d be wrong. It was passed, in 1798 and it was not
repealed until 1801.
In
fact, the history of the United States has been one of repeated transgressions
against the so-called “law of the land.”
If you expect the Constitution to protect you from being stripped of
your civil liberties, think again. The
Constitution has been ignored as a worthless nuisance by presidents in the
past, and precedents have been set, repeatedly, for its “guarantees” to be
withdrawn.
Consider,
for instance, Abraham Lincoln’s decree rescinding habeus corpus. Habeus corpus is the “law” that
supposedly “guarantees” you the right to an attorney, and to due process of
law. Take note: that “guarantee” was
withdrawn by Lincoln in the following language:
Soon
after the first call for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the
commanding general in proper cases according to his discretion, to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or in other words to arrest and detain,
without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as
he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been
exercised but very sparingly.
Note
the usual apologetics: Lincoln’s action was taken in the interests of “the
public safety,” and no one need worry himself over it, because it would be used
“but very sparingly.” Some comfort to
those against whom this arbitrary decree was directed.
Yet
another example of how “lawmakers” disregard as utterly unimportant the
over-touted “safeguards” of liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is the
Sedition Act of 1918. This law made it
unlawful to
willfully
utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution
of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . .
. or. . . willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or . . .willfully .
. . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate,
teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this
section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause
of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose
the cause of the United States therein. . . .
Bear
in mid that the legislation and decrees we’ve just cited were not mere
proposals – they were enacted into law and they were enforced. Virtually
everything you were taught as a youngster about “freedom” in the United States
is a shameless lie. Perhaps the most
frightening law to be enacted in the U.S. is the following one. What
distinguishes it from the others is the utter vagueness of the language, a
vagueness that totally conceals the horror it was intended to disguise. Let’s take a look at it
Whereas,
The successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection
against espionage and against sabotage to national defense material, national
defense premises and national defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of
April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533 as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat.
1220. and the Act of August 21, 1941. 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec.
104):
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in
me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy, l hereby authorized and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military
Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any
designated Commander deem such action necessary or desirable to prescribe
military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military
Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and
with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave
shall be subject to whatever restriction the Secretary of War or the
appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of
War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are
excluded therefrom. such transportation, food, shelter, and other
accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or
the said Military Commander and until other arrangements are made, to
accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any
region or locality shall supersede designation of prohibited and restricted
areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamation of December 7 and 8, 1941,
and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General
under the said Proclamation in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.
This is the infamous EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, issued
by Franklin Roosevelt in February, 1942, “authorizing” the detainment of
Japanese-Americans in so-called “internment camps.” A cursory glance at the
wording indicates nothing of its true purpose; in fact, the whole order is
phrased to appear to warrant the creation of special military districts in time
of war, from which persons may be “excluded” -- on the face of it, a reasonable
enough idea. We only begin to glean the
true purpose of this “Executive Order” when we come to the words, “The
Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area
who are excluded therefrom. such transportation, food, shelter, and other
accommodations as may be necessary.”
Pay close attention here. What
you are reading is the legal justification for stripping citizens of virtually
all of their civil liberties. What you
are reading is the government’s way of consigning hundreds of thousands of
innocent beings to life in a concentration camp. Nazism does not arrive with a fanfare of trumpets – it arrives
when you are unaware, and by the time you realize what has happened, it is far,
far too late. One brave citizen
refused to obey this “executive order,” and here is what happened to him. In KIYOSHI HIRABAYASHI v. UNITED STATES,
320 U.S. 81 (1943), it is reported that
On the trial to a jury it appeared that appellant was
born in Seattle in 1918, of Japanese parents who had come from Japan to the
United States, and who had never afterward returned to Japan; that he was
educated in the Washington public schools and at the time of his arrest was a
senior in the University of Washington; that he had never been in Japan or had
any association with Japanese residing there.
The evidence showed that appellant had failed to
report to the Civil Control Station on May 11 or May 12, 1942, as directed, to
register for evacuation from the military area. He admitted failure to do so,
and stated it had at all times been his belief that he would be waiving his
rights as an American citizen by so doing. The evidence also showed that for
like reason he was away from his place of residence after 8:00 p.m. on May 9,
1942. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts and appellant was
sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three months on each, the sentences to
run concurrently.
In other words, Mr. Hirabayashi, forget the
“Constitution.” The court might as well
have said, “We don’ need no steenking Constitution.” The whole affair smells like Hitler’s
“relocation” of the Jews to “the eastern provinces” during World War II.
******
Terrorism, like communism fifty years ago, has been
identified as America’s “enemy.” Like
any pejorative term, the word “terrorism” has been distilled in our conscious
minds to a set of mental flash cards – collapsing skyscrapers, crashing
airplanes, exploding cars, and so forth.
We seldom give thought to what terrorism really is, what conditions lead
to its appearance, what attracts people to practice it, what it perceives its
mission to be, or what logic it uses to justify itself. Sadly, uncritical minds too easily seize
upon the idea that terrorism is any violent act that “they” commit against “us,”
and their analysis begins and ends there.
It seems true that one man’s terrorist act is another
man’s show of patriotism. Let’s start
with some definitions. Terror is a
variety of propaganda. Propaganda
seeks either to persuade or to demoralize.
Persuasive propaganda can rely on truth, fiction, or a mixture of both;
but in its most effective manifestations, it focuses on delivering very simple
and seductive messages through the repetition of slogans.
Negative propaganda seeks to shock, cripple or
incapacitate its audience psychologically.
Examples of such propaganda are deliberately planted rumors (or
“disinformation“), veiled or overtly extortionist threats, and terrorism. Terrorism was once called “propaganda of the
deed,” to distinguish it from merely verbal, argumentative propaganda. In many respects, it resembles theater in
its efforts to induce particular emotions.
The terrorist act is a statement, a slogan if you will. It seeks to create in its audience a
mind-paralyzing fear. The act itself
becomes a kind of psychological shockwave which plays itself over and over
again in the minds of those who witness it.
Terror can be a weapon of governments against those
who oppose them, or it can be an act of groups or individuals who believe that
they are being oppressed. Its objective
is twofold: to discourage opposition (through the infliction of psychological
damage) and to exact retaliation for real or imagined past insults. Similarly, governments use terror both to
punish any who actively oppose it and to discourage others from taking their
place. Individuals and minorities use
terror either because they’ve exhausted all the ordinary avenues for persuasion
or positive propaganda, or because they feel powerless to fight in any other way. Governments employ terror when their
doctrines are fundamentally untenable, or when their powers are seriously being
eroded by organized opposition.
Terror is almost always committed in the name of an
ideology or principle, although its specific acts are relatively empty of
ideological content. The nearest that
terrorism comes to being “ideological” is when its targets are symbolic of an
ideological enemy. Hence, the attack on
the Wold Trade Center and on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were strikes
against symbols of American economic and military might. However, other acts of terror seem utterly
random or pointless. The notorious
terrorist Carlos (Ilyich Ramirez) once tossed a hand grenade into a Parisian
café. His reasons for doing so were
never quite clear, other than to enhance his own legend.
However, there are thousands of ideological sects in
the world that oppose American economic power and military might, so a strike
against either of these does not automatically represent a particular point of
opposition. The consequence is that
frequently, when a terrorist act occurs, groups that had nothing to do with its
execution hasten to take “credit” for it.
Waging “war” on terrorism through conventional
military means is costly and almost always utterly ineffective. By definition, terrorists are unconventional
fighters – that is, they do not subscribe to the conventions of warfare. Their armies are largely invisible. They do
not wear uniforms. They do not adhere
to treaties regarding the taking of prisoners or so-called “war crimes.” Their soldiers are indistinguishable from
ordinary civilians. Their fighting
methods are often highly innovative and their attacks are almost always
unexpected. Terrorists may have
succeeded in erasing in themselves any instincts toward self-preservation,
making them immune to threats of retaliation.
The danger in attempting to take on terrorism
militarily is that unless you can identify, locate and kill every active
terrorist as well as all of those who are involved in their support, the survivors
will live to recruit, reorganize, and strike again. Moreover, they will learn how to evade retaliatory strikes and
become even more effective in avoiding detection. They will almost certainly escalate the psychological intensity
of their acts, targeting children, the infirm, schools, churches, hospitals,
those who are the most innocent and
defenseless. Their methods will become
more brutal, shocking, and cruel. In
short, resistance to terror is the very thing which seems to fuel it. Wherever terror is organized, it seems to follow a logical progression
from focused guerilla attacks on military assets to the calculated slaughter of
innocents. Terrorist acts against the
United States in recent years have progressed from the take-over of embassies,
the kidnaping and murder of diplomats, and the bombing of U.S. Marine bases to
attacks on civilian office buildings and commercial airline flights. An al-Qaida training video released in March
shows terrorists rehearsing an attack on a school.
Even if one is successful in hunting down and killing
nests of terrorists, that very accomplishment may serve as inspiration for
others to become terrorists. Modern
medical practitioners have used antibiotics to wage “war” on certain pathogenic
microbes for decades. Despite initial
successes, those microbes have come back with a vengeance, having learned how
to mutate to acquire resistance to all common antibiotics. Others have mutated into “benign” strains,
waiting for an opportunity to mutate again, at some distant point in the
future, into virulent organisms. It is
becoming increasingly apparent that the war on microbes has only worsened the
potential for them to destroy and kill at unprecedented levels.
The Israelis have had considerable success in hunting
down and capturing or killing individual terrorist leaders, but very little
success in stemming terrorism in general.
In fact, the practice they have adopted recently of bulldozing the homes
of suspected terrorists into rubble has seemed only to send more and more
Palestinian youth into terrorist training camps. Educated, middle class Palestinians are now becoming human
suicide bombers in defense of the Palestinian cause. The problem is no longer isolated in refugee camps.
While Americans tend to see the events of September
11, 2001 in a greatly telescoped temporal context, they cannot deny that their
own government killed a hundred times as many innocent people on August 6,
1945. It was the United States of
America that used the atomic bomb as an instrument of terror to force the
Japanese into surrendering. Suggestions
to use the bomb in a demonstration setting, such as at some South Pacific
island, were immediately rejected.
First, there was the possibility that the bomb might be a “dud,” but the
overwhelming rationale for using the bomb on Japan was to show Joseph Stalin
that the United States was not afraid to use it. The dropping of not one, but two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was one of the most cynically calculated acts of terrorism ever
perpetrated. It had far less to do with
“ending the war” than it did with scaring the pants off the Russians, whom high
level decision makers in Washington regarded as the looming post-war threat.
During the French and Indian wars, the British
invented the practice of scalping as an act of terror to discourage the Indians
from fighting alongside the French. How
ironic that the practice took root and that today, it is mistakenly regarded as
something the Indians did to white people.
Wake up, white man. They learned
it from you.
Nor can it escape the world’s attention that the
United States has committed scores of other terrorist atrocities, from Sand
Creek to My Lai, and that it actively turns a blind eye to the terrorist
activities of its darling ally in the Middle East, Israel. How can we forget that Israel owes its very
existence to the terrorist acts of the Irgun and the Stern Gang in the
1940's? What kind of psychological
effect can it possibly have had on Palestinians to know that Menachem Begin,
the architect of the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1948, was later awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize? This news must
have been as appalling to the Palestinians as it would be to ordinary Americans
if they were to open their newspapers and discover that bin Laden had become
this year’s recipient of the same prize.
Given a broader historical perspective, it is easier
to see how someone committing terrorist acts against the United States could
perceive himself as a warrior fighting for justice. Understanding terrorism requires one to step back and see the
world as objectively as possible. You
cannot begin to understand terrorism or the terrorist mentality if you adhere
to political prejudices or deep-seated moral outrage at particular isolated
acts of terror. Examine historical
records closely; you will see that terror is a weapon that is used almost
universally, by governments against their people and by people against their
oppressors. It is only through adopting
some relative viewpoint that a particular act becomes either “terroristic” or
“heroic.”
It is very important to understand that things happen
in the world because of a long chain of causes and conditions extending back
over the historical horizon into the distant, forgotten past. All events are caused. All human acts are motivated. Forget, momentarily, about right and wrong. Simply allow your mind to acknowledge that a
terrorist’s view of reality is as strong and as powerful as your own. Maybe even stronger and more powerful. Examine the evidence. Those whom your community or your nation
widely regards as “terrorists” are disconcertingly regarded by millions of
others as “heroes” and “freedom fighters.”
What evidence is there that these others are “deluded,” while your
neighbors aren’t? With the
instantaneous worldwide transmission of news, the same information is
accessible to nearly all. And yet the
same facts will support opposing conclusions.
The world is filled with religions, and each one claims that God favors
it over all others. Given this
circumstance, who is right and who is wrong?
Objectively, it is easier to conclude that all are wrong than that any
one particular religion is right.
Allowing emotion to affect your notions about
terrorism dilutes your power to perceive and to accept reality for what it
is. Observe the world dispassionately,
and you will see that no one is without sin.
The dead are dead and the suffering still suffer. Is the grieving brother of someone hideously
burned by radiation at Nagasaki any less deserving of compassion that the
distraught sister of someone killed at the World Trade Center? How can you quantify evil? Is killing a thousand people any more
horrific than killing a dozen, or even a single individual? Right is right and wrong is wrong and
killing is killing and terror is terror.
Terrorism is everywhere. It is not hard to locate.
It is committed, shockingly enough, by one’s friends and allies as well
as by one’s enemies. What can be
gained by acknowledging only the terrorism of selected groups and ignoring the
rest?
As terrorism is innovative, so must the solution to
terrorism be. Characterizing terrorists
as inhuman and cowardly only hardens their resolve. The terrorist does not seek to persuade his victims to his point
of view. He is beyond that. He fully expects to provoke massive
reprisals, but he does not care. He
knows that the reprisals will only serve to steer more and more into his own
ranks. His objective is to polarize the
world into two warring camps – his and the enemy’s. In his acts, he is drawing a line in the sand. His world is purely confrontational and he
does not know how to survive without confrontation.
The terrorist never perceives of himself as a criminal
or evildoer. Unlike ordinary criminals
who are genuinely unconcerned with higher values, the terrorist sees himself as
an agent of ultimate justice. The path
that leads one to become a terrorist is beset with moral dilemmas, and it is
only after a long period of reflection and contemplation, vacillation and
indecision, that one resolves to be a terrorist. In so doing, he renounces everything that ordinary people hold
dear: family, peace, longevity, health, and life. He deliberately fashions himself into an automaton and uses the
terrorist organization as a tool for reinforcing and magnifying his rage. The terrorist deliberately makes himself
over to such an extent that he places himself beyond the powers of anyone to
persuade or intimidate him. He becomes
oblivious to pain – both his own and that of others. He roots out all vestiges of compassion and numbs himself to the
anguish he seeks to unleash. At his
most successful pinnacle, he achieves a kind of pathetic ecstacy through his
deeds.
******
The aftershocks of the war on Iraq are bound to
continue for many years. I dare to
predict the following:
1.
Arab unity will
soar. Even such pro-U.S. countries as
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are now faced with massive demonstrations
against the U.S., and against their governments which they perceive as “selling
out” to U.S. interests and money.
Revolution, overthrow of the existing governments, and the establishment
of fundamentalist Islamic regimes threaten all of these countries. A hint of this was made apparent on March
27, 2003, ten days into the war, when Saudi Foreign Minister Prince
Saud-ul-Faisal said that prolongation of the war in Iraq could “affect Saudi
Arab and USA bilateral relations.” This
is putting it mildly. In Jedda, Osama
bin Laden’s home town, American workers live permanently behind a “protective”
enclosure of barbed wire, so fierce is anti-American feeling.
Worst case scenario: the monarchies of Jordan and Saudi Arabia
are replaced with Iran-like Islamic fundamentalist regimes and Islamic
fundamentalists seize power in Egypt, turning the entire Middle East and North
Africa into war zones as the U.S. fights to protect Israel and control the Suez
Canal
2.
Terrorist attacks on the
United States will continue and escalate.
Millions of Arabic youth will have been galvanized and radicalized by
this war, and their extreme hatred for the U.S. will almost certainly manifest
itself in suicide attacks and even in stupendous acts of terror. There are hundreds of thousands of
pro-Palestinian students who have gotten degrees in technical fields like engineering,
chemistry, physics, and biology from western universities, and these are
precisely the kinds of people who can design, build, and deploy weapons that
can cripple the American economy.
Forget nuclear weapons – look for sophisticated
attacks on computer networking, disruption of banking and commercial
activities, and attacks on power grids.
Look for agri-terror, and especially for the possible release of
engineered diseases that will attack crops like wheat, potatos, rice, and soy
beans, as well as livestock.
Drought-stricken areas of the American Southwest could become targets
for firestorm-generating acts of arson.
You might wish to heed the words of bin Laden, who said on Feb 11, 2003,
“We have recorded through our fight with the enemy that they concentrate on
psychological warfare. They rely on intensive air bombardment, but their
soldiers are cowards . . . . Their smart bombs failed to help them (at Tora
Bora, Afghanistan). They will be wasting their weapons and their money. . . .
We also advise you to drag the forces into fighting you in street fights. Take
them into farms, into cities, and fight them in there ... they will be losing a
lot of lives. We also encourage the suicide attacks against the enemy. Just
look at what happened to the U.S. and Israel."
3.
A strengthened alliance
between the U.S. and the fascistic, racist Likud regime in Israel which has
made known its objective of destroying the Palestinian people and forever
denying them statehood. Acts of
barbarity and war crimes committed by Israel will reach horrific heights, as
the religious fanatics of the Knesset are goaded on by the Brooklyn-Miami axis,
which exerts a stranglehold on American foreign policy through its control of
banking, the media, and entertainment.
4.
Increasing isolation of
the United States from the affairs of the world. There will be massive boycotts of American goods, attacks on
American corporations abroad, suspension of travel and tourism to the U.S., and
less opportunity for U.S. citizens to travel abroad as they become soft targets
for terrorists. Russia and even perhaps
China will win greater and greater support from Third World countries and will
replace the U.S. as the dominant moral influences in those regions. America
will become seen as increasingly bankrupt morally, and many American
intellectuals will leave the country to resettle in Europe, Asia, or Central
America. The U.S. will begin to face a
“brain drain.” The first inkling of what
is to come was reported on March 27th, when we learned that police
in Washington had already arrested two Nobel laureates along with others in an
anti war rally. Reed Corrigen and Judy
Williams were arrested along with two clergymen while they tried crossing a
police hurdle during the rally against the Iraq war.
Just as many intellectuals, including Einstein, Freud,
and scores of nuclear physicists fled from Germany in the 1930's, enlightened
people will begin to abandon the United States for friendlier shores.
5.
Draconian assaults on
civil liberties within the U.S. will create division within the country and
very possibly lead to domestic terrorist incidents as pro-gun and pro-free
speech advocates find fewer and fewer forums for free expression of their views
open to them. Timothy McVeigh, the
Oklahoma City bomber, was partially motivated by his experiences in the 1991
Gulf War, where he witnessed American bullying first hand. Veterans of the current war will come home
equally disillusioned with the barbarity of their own government, and some of
them, possessing the requisite training and contacts, will attack governmental
facilities at home.
6.
An ever tighter grip on
the news media will leave Americans with only sanitized versions of
events. Foreign news services like
Al-Jazira will be removed from public access on the Internet in the U.S. This is already becoming a reality as the
government begins leaning on domestic news services not to report such things
as U.S. casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties. Never before has a U.S. administration used its power to strip reporters
of their credentials, or to blackball certain news outlets, but they are doing
so now. The message is: play along with
our propaganda or never cover a news conference, a war, or any other major
event controlled by us again.
The questions asked by reporters on the morning news
do not even begin to disguise their editorial sympathies. All pretense at objectivity in news
reporting has vanished. Interviews are
structured to promote a certain pro-government, pro-American view. During the 1960's, the CIA began actively to
recruit reporters as freelance agents, and the practice has expanded. Newscasters whose names are household words
receive millions of dollars annually “under the table” from the C.I.A. and even
from the White House directly.
7.
Arrests without cause,
detentions without habeas corpus, wiretaps without justification, seizures
without precedent, and further assaults on American liberties will continue
unabated as the so-called “Patriot Act” is honed and strengthened to enable the
government to create virtual concentration camps for political
undesirables. No one is seriously or
effectively protesting the present arrests and secret trials of “suspected
terrorists,” and no one will protest your arrest, either. The concentration camp at Guantanamo will be
augmented by more camps situated in Alaska, Nevada, and other remote, sparsely
populated areas. It will become a crime
to criticize the government openly.
8.
Fundamentalist
Christianity will become, de facto, the “official” religion of the
United States. Persons at public
events, and particularly children, will be pressured to acknowledge “god” and
“Jesus” as their deities, at the risk of strident public ostracism. Gigantic religious revivals and mass
meetings will send a clear message to unbelievers and members of fringe
religions to keep quiet. The bombers of
abortion clinics will not be prosecuted, and no court will seriously entertain
any case alleging religious persecution.
Judges will be appointed on the basis of their religious affiliation,
much as they used to be on the basis of their race or sex, although this will
not be codified in law.
9.
You will see American
flags virtually everywhere. It will
become as omnipresent as was the swastika in 1930's Germany.
10.
Articles like this one
will cease to exist on the open market.
Some may be printed clandestinely, until their editors and contributors
are silenced.