A Real War on Terrorism
Superb series by Robert Wright, in Slate: begins here
slate.msn.com
Here's reasons why I like it, from today's piece. slate.msn.com
He expresses a point I gave up belabouring elsewhere (bolded):
Of course, there's never been a time when seething worldwide discontent was good for America's security. But in the past, for the discontent to really hurt Americans, it had to first find expression via some national government. That's why 50 years ago the basic goal of American foreign policy was simple: Make sure all national governments either like us or fear us. As we approach an age when a small group of free-lancers can traumatize a nation, the rules of foreign policy change.
The problem isn't that Washington has been wholly oblivious to this development. On the contrary: For years it's been hard to make it past the front desk of a foreign-policy think tank without noting the growing significance of "non-state actors." But chanting the "non-state" mantra isn't tantamount to getting the picture. The disconnect between mantra and picture lies with the phrase "non-state actors." Though technically accurate, it suggests the image of a finite number of enemies, lurking in dark corners, whose elimination would spell lasting security. As President Bush puts it, we'll "smoke out" the terrorists, hunt them down, and that will be that. "We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest."
This sort of rhetoric acknowledges one of the two technologically driven trends behind Proposition 1 but ignores the other. Bush sees that, thanks to advancing munitions technology, a few well-organized terrorists can now do lots of damage. But he gives short shrift to the fact that, thanks to advancing information technology, intense anti-Americanism is more and more likely to become clusters of well-organized terrorists. Once you emphasize both trends, you see what a pickle we're in. Many things you would do to "smoke out" terrorists could increase the amount and intensity of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and elsewhere.
In other words, it's not that I disagree with Bush's premise - "Terrorism is wrong and should be stopped". Like, Duh. Even Bush can see that.
It's that his actions, and those of the war machine retreads suchs as Cheney and Wolfowitz, will not only fail to stop terrorism - they'll make it worse.
Seen in this light, some American anti-terrorism policies appear if not clearly wrongheaded, at least more dubious than before.
After Sept. 11, we sent hundreds of troops to the Philippines to help the government fight Islamic guerrillas. .. This particular mission—to confront a group known as Abu Sayyaf—had little relevance to the war on terrorism anyway. As the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof pointed out, Abu Sayyaf is basically a small group of thugs who kidnap for profit. ... Meanwhile, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a larger, more genuinely ideological Philippine guerrilla group that has clearer ties to al-Qaida, was unharmed by the operation—though its leaders presumably enjoyed the demonstrations and may have capitalized on the clumsy American presence to build support.
And of course consequences will likely be even worse in Europe, because we're closer and easier to reach from the ME.
Bush probably doesn't realise this. Cheney could give a rats ass - at least till it starts hitting his buddies' company profits and share prices. Hell, he probably figures he'll be dead by the time the sh*t really hits the fan. (He deserves to be dead... another matter).
sending troops in to quell other nations' separatist uprisings is not a policy that should be pursued without discernment, unless our goal is to divert the hatred of all the world's separatists toward America... a "show of force" [is] something that may work when you're trying to intimidate a potentially aggressive nation but that may backfire when the enemy is, in part, Muslim resentment of American power and arrogance.
As I say, a well-argued and intelligent critique, with positive suggestions rather than mere carping. |
