I wish to debate these points you've made, understanding that we both desire the same end and we both agree on military action to bring murdering terrorists to justice or elimination. It is the means that I wish to debate. Please do not view this as bashing, of you or our country. My critiques are to express points, not to diminish any resolve...
For a comparison, one only as to look at the "war on drugs". No matter how much money we spend, drugs still get through, people still get high, and drug dealers still pervade our streets. And this is because it is "profitable" and the "cost/benefit" analysis still favors engaging in such activity.
I disagree. It remains profitable mostly to those at the top, who pay off cops, judges, border agents, politicians, and keep the profits rolling in. What we've achieved is one of the world's highest incarceration rates, with prisons as one of the nation's biggest growth industry of the past quarter century. An inordinate number of the convicts are minorities and an overwhelming majority are not middle or upper class, but poor. The reason many of them traffic in drugs is because it seems to offer a higher income level than the other options. That higher income availability comes from drug prices driven up by the war against them... another nasty cycle.
Because the cost of incarcerating so many has become exorbitant, states have begun passing laws making it mandatory that they work. Viewed through jaded glasses, these prison industries could be construed as 'slavery-with-a-morally-justified-excuse'.
I know this seems far from a foreign policy discussion, but upon reflection, I felt it has other parallels that make it germane. What is a principal way the Taliban is funded? Opium cultivation. Why? Because the demand is sufficient and the market bears a price high enough that it is a lucrative profession. And as economic analyses have revealed, the other options currently available do not pay as well, meaning more people will starve.
Afghanistan, because of its own dynamics and a dearth of natural resources in a harsh climactic region, is one of the world's ghetto nations. And if it wasn't for Bin Ladin (NOT the Taliban btw), we'd be ignoring the misery of the ghetto still. Humanitarian aid? Sure. We provide clinics and food stamps and minimalist wage jobs to the ghetto too. But little changes.
I'll move on...
To stop terrorism, the cost/benefit analysis for those nations that permit and facilitate such activities must become too expensive a price to pay. Terrorism doesn't just "happen".. It is supported financially.. It's practictioners are harbored (as OBL is being harbored in Afghanistan), and its soldiers are drawn from the ranks of the people within these nations.
While I agree with this first statement, facilitating such activities requires a definition of the activities. For example, we have determined we want to stop ruthless behavior and wanton killing of innocents, but mostly on our own soil. I think that's great. What about the murders on foreign soils?
As most blowback stories give witness too, we draw the fine line that it's okay to fund resisters of soldiers who we consider hostile to our interests. We have done so via assassination (Iran, etc), by fighting against popularly supported and even elected leaders (Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc.) I don't believe Iran, Vietnam or Nicaragua was ever a threat to our shores, so what interests were we protecting? Oil and business interests, sometimes. The often mythical Communist bogeyman sometimes. Intended or not, our funds, weapons and training caused many civilians to die... even nuns and priests. Is that terrorism? And would it seem so if you were a peasant in those countries, or well-off and members of your family died?
Furthermore, I believe there are wealthy financiers in even countries we view as allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Some wish us ill. Some wish to keep the discontent underclasses of their own nations moving to Afghanistan so their own neighborhoods are safer. (Granted, I'm suggesting the latter is so. I have no proof. I merely ask you whether it is plausible; I believe it is.)
The bigmouth plotters, the frontline terrorists, the trainers and organizers, all of these may be brought to justice now. But for the most part, I honestly believe the wealthy pawnbrokers behind them will largely stay hidden and escape unscathed. Why? Because there is an element of classism in all wars.
If we wish to show the world otherwise, and all participants are granted justice, that would be way better than what usually occurs. In fact, if we started at the top, instead of the bottom, I think terrorism would dry up twice as fast. But I am jaded enough to think it will not happen at all.
So to TRULY stop it, we have to be willing to take whatever military action is necessary to obtain the result we desire, namely the identification, arrest, and punishment of those individuals engaged in these terrorists acts.
Does this mean, if necessary, we can ram buildings with suicidal plane hijackers? Or use bio, chemical, or nuclear warfare? Does it mean our Special Forces can be a little rougher in interrogations than the Geneva Convention rules would like? All signs point to the fact that the terrain and the enemy soldiers would be that ruthless; therefore it's highly likely our troops will have to bend a few rules to get the job done. Because war is ugly. The ultimate purpose is to be effective, so the desired ends can be realized. It's not about moral niceties; those canards must be stored away for other situations. War cannot be dressed up in pretty clothes; success requires effectiveness and nothing else.
I'm the son of a career soldier who made no bones about it. "I'm a paid killer," he'd say. Even though his direct task was reconnaissance, he understood he was part and parcel of an organization of people whose ultimate end was to kill, or to be effective enough to menace others to make them treat us passively.
Our freedoms and opportunities are great and wonderful. As a nation, we've been blessed with a temperate climate, rich natural resources and abundant arable land. But if we lacked the capacity again and again to prove that we were among the most effective killers in the world, someone would have invaded long ago to take all the things we have.
I've wrestled with my soul about such realities. Ultimately, I conclude that, as Churchill said: (I think I'm paraphrasing)"Democracy is the worst form of government ever, other than all the other forms of government that have existed."
In other words, I am not content with all we've done, but I believe our system has sufficient promise to yield better results than any other way has demonstrated thus far. Which means we are on a long path, but we've yet to reach a destination that I'm content with. And I further recognize that all caring citizens recognize they must wrestle with even our own government, to keep it on that path, or every bit of spilled blood through the centuries will have been in vain.
Finally, recognizing that all citizens in all nations are faced with times when they must wrestle against the abuses and repressions of governments, I'll venture further than the simplistic statements of politicians who claim there is no moral ambiguity.
They preach to people who want fast and simple answers. Nikita Kruschev once put it: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise you a bridge where there is no river."
I say, facing serious repression, there are times when terrorism is justified. The British thought we were terrorists because our soldiers hid behind rocks and trees, sniping against their superior forces. We did not fight their civilized way, by lining up in rows and marching straight forward at them.
In our 'Civil' War, The Swamp Fox was a guerrilla fighter that the Confederacy viewed as a terrorist. Not to mention General Sherman, who burned the homes of civilians on his march through Atlanta.
One country's terrorist can be another's freedom fighter. The victors ultimately provide the final definition.
If those examples don't suffice, shall we discuss Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the death of innocents?
If we are on a joint mission to combat terrorism, fine. But let's not stop with the front lines with all the pawns of war. Let's go after the masterminds and financiers. And let's not stop in the Middle East. If we do, some jaded folks might think it's still about oil, globalism, exploiting the world's resources (especially the Third World's), and damning the environment, to boot.
As Kazakhstan may hold oil reserves that make it the next oil baron, on a par with SA, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, the US and Russia, certainly some entrepreneur will suggest a good replacement economy for the Afghan's is to build a pipeline through their country to get that oil to market. It might even benefit Russia a little, yes?
I'm not suggesting that's a bad idea. I'm simply saying, if the war against terrorism is fought aggressively in Afghanistan and a few other Middle East countries, and elsewhere, the battle is lukewarm, (i.e., the IRA), then all the jaded folks - like George <GG> - will be doing the 'told-ya-so' dance.
And the underclasses in the defeated nations, or in nations with repressive governments that perform like terrorists, and in nations still stuck with active terrorists, will completely miss the point about how wonderful democracy is.
I want justice today. But justice is a process. I want the process to endure and grow. And I'll try to aid and encourage it all my life.
That's much harder than mere war; I hope the supply lines hold.
kevin@youmayfirewhenreadyGridley |
