Terrorism: A Brief for Americans (Our Current Policies are Increasing Terrorism)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.care2.com/dailyaction/primary.html?da%5Btoday%5D=2007-02-07

Terrorism: A Brief for Americans

The scope, causes, and means for reducing terrorism, including commentary on Iraq


1/28/07

***

Our Current Policies are Increasing Terrorism


***


ÒPeople donÕt rebel because they are poor but because they are excluded from the system. To give people a stake in the economy, to prove to them that government is in the business of including them in formal society, is to put the terrorists out of business.Ó Hernando de Soto

ÒForce does not subdue, it enrages.Ó American Respect essay, September 2004

ÒThe Marshall Plan for Europe stands as the greatest vindication of the argument that the tactics of terror must never be met with like behavior.Ó Caleb Carr

ÒWith malice toward none.Ó Abraham Lincoln


Introduction

On November 7, 2006 Americans went to the polls and registered a deep concern on the course of the war in Iraq. For months ahead of the mid-term elections, they understood what leaders in the White House refused to acknowledge: A region spiraling downward in violence and bloodshed. American troops with no exit strategy. Most horrific of all, U.S. soldiers—AmericaÕs finest—tortured, killed and mutilated in a war making no observable progress in achieving the promised reduction in terrorism.

We hold the view that there is a better plan for exiting Iraq, one that is based on a clearer understanding of both that countryÕs history and the civil war underway there now. We also hold the view that there is a better path to reducing terrorism that is very different than the one currently being pursued. This new path adheres to the values that have made this country great—justice and strength combined with respect, humility and inclusiveness—and, if followed, can reaffirm this greatness. Unlike the current course, this plan is built upon a recognition and understanding of the causes and nature of terrorism.

Simply put, U.S. policies and actions in Iraq and throughout the world have increased world terrorism. The predictions made by our administration regarding the war have been badly wrong—predictions regarding how quickly it would end, how much it would cost, how we would be greeted as liberators, and how terrorism would decline as a result. Now predictions are no longer even offered.

The predictions have been wrong because their view of the cause of terrorism is wrong. Therefore the plan for defeating terrorism also has been wrong. By leading our finest into the wrong war, and leaving them there too long, we have put them in an untenable situation. Haditha and Abu Ghraib are the failure of our leadership in Washington, not our soldiers on the front lines.

Tragically, the AdministrationÕs policies, founded on misunderstanding, will most probably lead to the ascendance of yet another repressive regime or regimes in Iraq as the only way to restore ÒorderÓ to the country. But the damage will not be limited to that country alone. Our mistakes in Iraq will haunt us throughout the region and beyond. Violent terrorism has accelerated and spread. More lives – military and civilian – certainly will be lost.

Our thesis is this: Extremists who commit acts of terror exist in virtually all religions and societies, including our own. The most serious problems with terrorism occur in countries or regions where extremists have gained the sympathy and support of a broad population. Generally, that receptive population is enduring oppression or occupation. The most effective way to eliminate that support, to isolate – and thus neutralize – extremists, is to overcome occupation or oppression. And the most effective way to achieve that is through truly a decentralized and representative government. Opportunity must replace despair.

Crucially, power cannot be decentralized into a democracy if economic opportunity and wealth are not also decentralized in close to the same time frame. Economic development is an integral and indispensable part of the equation.

Many new plans and policy alternatives are now being put forward, including the Report of the Iraq Study Group. Most, however, are built on these same misunderstandings that led us to where we stand today. Increasing the number of troops will not bring real progress in Iraq. Military strategy cannot be properly set until the political situation is rightly understood.

Nothing can excuse the horrors of terrorism. Yet terrorists are not born. They are created by external forces. This essay will explain the causes of terrorism, the solution to reducing terrorism, and outline a realistic path forward. This is not an exclusive, or unique, view. Rather, it incorporates, distills and synthesizes much that has been written by historians and commentators in this area, analyses that —unfortunately— have accurately forecast the events of the last three years. We cite the works of those experts here to augment our own opinions and buttress our recommendations. This essay points to a path away from our dilemma and toward better times.

This essay addresses these issues:

á What is terrorism?

á Why they hate us

á How to reduce terrorism

á What we have wrought in Iraq

á What we should do in Iraq

á Thoughts on Palestine, Lebanon and Iran

á How we should conduct relations with Islamic countries going forward

á The current administrationÕs position on Iraq and terrorism

Robert Wright wrote in his July 16, 2006 article on "progressive realism," "Exploring the root causes of bad behavior, far from being a sentimentalist weakness, informs the deft use of real power." Arthur Schlesinger wrote, "The great strength of history in a free society is its capacity for self-correction."

We heartily agree.

On a personal note, as primary author of this essay, I must state that I am a businessperson and have rarely been deeply involved or interested in politics. When I have, it has almost always been to support conservative policies and candidates. However, my passion is history, and because of that, I have been speaking out since before the invasion of Iraq against what history has shown would be the ineffectiveness of this administrationÕs approach to the war on terror. My motives have included the safety of family and friends as well as the avoidance of death and destruction in Iraq. I believe our current course is making things worse. I also see firsthand the detrimental effects of this war on U.S. business. After the invasion, a barrel of oil spiked from $28 to over $70, short-term interest rates climbed by 4.25%, the U.S. deficit grew to record levels and global trade—a crucial engine of AmericaÕs business growth—was impacted.

We hope that you will take the few minutes needed to read this essay. It is a message that we hope will be heard.



What is terrorism? What causes others to be influenced by terrorists?

In virtually every society and historical era there have been extremists who have used the tactics of terror to advance their causes. From White Supremacists, the Black Panthers and anti-government militia movements in America, to the anarchists in Europe and America in the early 20th century, to the IRA in Ireland and the Red Army in Japan in the aftermath of World War II, extremists have arisen using bombs and various means of terror to attack others in a way calculated to bring attention to their cause and inflict damage—directly or indirectly—on the perceived enemies of that cause.

There have been excellent works, including Marc SagemanÕs Understanding Terror Networks, Lawrence WrightÕs Looming Tower, and Michael Lind and Peter Bergen, in ÒA Matter of PrideÓ which have shown that the core members of these extremist groups are often young men, in many cases professional and well-to-do, who join because of alienation, humiliation and disaffection and through the pull of social and recruiting networks. These groups often come to embrace strong "-isms" — religions or ideologies, including communism, fascism or the dicta of a charismatic leader—that bring a sense of purpose and a foundation for their causes. But disaffection and alienation, not religion or ideology, are the common threads that bind these groups.

Of the thousands of such groups that exist or have existed, the validity of their causes is often questionable or worse. One element remains consistent throughout time and geography, however. These extremists believe themselves denied the resources or opportunity to advance their cause through conventional means. They believe acts of terrorism will gain them access and relief.

The historian Jay Winik, in a book about the American Civil War written before the 9/11 attacks and the current Iraq war, describes well what terrorists are and why terrorists succeed. In reading this passage, where Winik uses the term "guerilla"—the term coined to describe the terrorists fighting Napoleon—substitute the term "terrorist":

"uerrilla warfare is and always has been the very essence of how the weak make war against the strong. Insurrectionist, subversive, chaotic, its methods are often chosen instinctively, but throughout time, they have worked with astonishing regularityÉ.By luring their adversaries into endless, futile pursuit, guerrillas erode not just the enemyÕs strength, but, far more importantly, the enemyÕs morale as well.Ó (Jay Winik, April 1865, HarperCollins, 2001, pp 147-8)



The fact that a weak group resorts to terrorist tactics to fight the strong does not excuse the horror and repugnance of their acts, but it is a pattern that is well-established.

In a comprehensive study of thousands of terrorist activities from the past half century, William Eubank and Leonard Weinberg conclude that such actions occur most often in stable democracies and suggest that is because of the openness and freedom within these societies. (They cite such examples as the Red Army Faction in Germany and the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S.) But the extremists committing these terrorist acts rarely gain truly broad acceptance within a stable democracy because there are other available options to express discontent, notably the ballot.

The terms terrorists, extremists, insurgents, guerrillas, jihadists and fundamentalists have been used freely and in many cases interchangeably in discussions of al Qaeda, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and the Mideast. This has added much confusion and imprecision to the discussions. For our purposes, and in this thesis, our working definition will be this: Terrorism is a method for a weaker group, most often an extremist group, to fight an establishment or those in power. Terrorism can include any number of violent tactics—including targeted ÒguerrillaÓ attacks on small and unsuspecting parts of that in-power groupÕs military, and/or the intentional targeting of civilians for political purposes. The extremist group often uses an Ò-ismÓ as a cause or source of ideological strength against the perceived oppressors or occupiers— thus the terms jihadism and fundamentalism to describe these movements in the Middle East. If the extremist cause resonates, it will spread to a broader population. If large enough, it will trigger a civil war.

Our concern — one of the keys to this essay— are those situations where the issues advanced by the extremists come to be shared by a truly broad constituency within a country or affected group. That occurs when the issue in conflict resonates and there exist no bona fide channels for that broad population to find redress.

Across time and geography, extremism most often takes root and gains support only in situations where occupation and/or oppression exist. In these circumstances, those holding power fail to adequately provide the affected population with any voice in government, property rights, opportunity for economic advancement, and personal freedom and safety. This is often accompanied by wholesale government corruption and harsh suppression of dissenting voices. The deprived feel powerless and humiliated. It is no coincidence that government's failure to provide these basic needs—especially property rights and a true voice in governance—almost always creates or exacerbates extreme poverty. The truly poor are often receptive listeners to the message of extremists and become ready recruits for their cause.

Oppression, as we define it here, has taken the form of a strong, repressive central government such as existed in Saudi Arabia, Peru, and Egypt, or the decentralized chaos of warlords, as has been the case in Afghanistan—because in both examples the basic obligations of government described above are not met. Hear the voice of Carlos Marighella, writing in Brazil in 1969 in his Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla:

ÒThe urban guerrilla is an implacable enemy of the regime, and systematically inflicts damage on the authorities and on the people who dominate the country and exercise power. The primary task of the urban guerrilla is to distract, to wear down, to demoralize the military regime and its repressive forces, and also to attack and destroy the wealth and property of the foreign managers and the Brazilian upper class.Ó

We will also include in our definition the oppression of a cultural, ethnic or religious group such as the Basques in Spain and the Serbian and Albanian situation in Kosovo. In some cases, these extremists are established or supported by an external state or entity. However, even in these cases, extremism will not take root unless the message resonates with the general populace.

Examples of occupation, under whatever guise, include the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan which led ultimately to a generation of terrorists including the Taliban and Al Qaeda; the French occupation of Algeria which spawned the FLN, and the British occupation of Ireland which ultimately produced the IRA.

Importantly, whether a given population is justified in its perception of occupation or oppression is not within the scope of this paper to debate, and not all occupation or oppression leads directly to extremism. However, one thing is certain: For extremists to be harbored by the broad population, the perception of occupation or oppression has to be widely shared.

The Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorism because dictatorships and economic inequality abound. As Lawrence Wright wrote, referring to Al Qaeda and those recruited to the Afghan resistance to the Soviets:


FULL article at link above.