Terrorism -- American style
FFRIDAY, JUNE 04, 1999
Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.
His WorldNetDaily column appears every Friday. You can hear his
radio program over the internet via Real Audio.
Posted for discussion and educational purposes only. Not for commercial use.
Thursday's announcement of an ambiguous Yugoslav peace agreement shouldn't obscure the deep damage that the so-called civilized world has inflicted on its own conscience by following the moral leadership of Bill Clinton.
The apparent willingness of Milosevic to accept some version of NATO's terms may mean that NATO's criminal effort to break the will of the Yugoslavian people is working. A sustained and punishing attack on the people of Yugoslavia themselves can, no doubt, eventually break their will, and reduce them to a point where they will say "enough, we don't want to die any more." At that point, however Pyrrhic the victory, Clinton and his buddies will no doubt stand up and declare a triumphant precedent for benign internationalist intervention. Perhaps that moment will soon be at hand, although given the Clinton incompetence in foreign affairs generally, one would think that Milosevic stands a good chance of pulling a "Hussein" and manipulating diplomacy in ways he can't manipulate NATO airplanes high overhead.
But whatever kind of "victory" Bill Clinton claims, I think that the rest of us ought to hang our heads in shame. The NATO campaign has followed a strategy that we know to be wrong and deeply immoral. The moral norms that as a decent and civilized people we have worked to establish condemn a strategy that aims to break and destroy the civilian people of a country in order to achieve political objectives. The classic definition of terrorism is the use of force against civilians in order to get them to do your bidding as a result of the terror induced in their hearts. And we have been practicing a strategy based on just such a use of force.
Of course, the official spokesmen for our policy have been careful to avoid stating directly what our strategy has been. That has been left to Clinton proxies, like Senator Lieberman, who have been making unofficial, and more truthful, statements of what we are up to. Here are some of the things he has said in recent weeks: "I hope it doesn't take ground troops to win, because I hope the air campaign, even if it does not convince Milosevic to order his troops out of Kosovo, will so devastate his economy, which it is doing now, so ruin the lives of his people, that they will rise up and throw him out."
Senator Lieberman has characterized our effort as intending to "bring the war in Kosovo home to the people, the civilians, in Belgrade, so that they pressure Milosevic to break," and he has admitted that, contrary to what one might expect from the usual distinction between combatants and non-combatants, we are in fact trying to make life miserable for ordinary Serbs. "That's what we have been doing for the last couple of months. We're not only hitting military targets. Otherwise, why would we be cutting off the water supply and knocking out the power stations, turning the lights off? We are trying, through the air campaign, to break the will of the Serbian people, so they will force their leader to break his will, to then order the troops -- his troops -- out of Kosovo. You can't get troops on the ground out of someplace from the air. And so we are trying to carry on essentially a test of wills, trying to break his will. ..."
So our policy has been to make war on a civilian population so that they will produce a political change in their country. Any of the official spokesmen of our military would publicly deny this objective. They would deny it because Americans have long declared that targeting civilians in war is deeply immoral and violates the fundamental norms and conventions of civilized warfare. We have consistently believed that it is barbaric to conduct a war aimed at harming a civilian population. This has been our established standard of moral decency. But if we adopt the Lieberman view of war, then there is suddenly no difference between the American people and the wicked forces that we have fought and defeated throughout the hot and cold wars of the 20th century. Those who realize how precious that difference has been should be deeply anguished as we watch the conscience of the American people being deadened by our complicity in the Yugoslavian war.
But perhaps our national conscience will be saved by the humanitarian sentiments in which this war has been sloppily draped? Aren't we doing it for the sake of the Kosovars, and doesn't that make it all right? We should remember that the evil enemies we fought in this century did not consider themselves to be evil any more than we do now. They too told themselves that they were fighting for wonderful and noble goals, and that they just had to do certain terrible things in order to achieve those goals.
The real evil in them was their acceptance of the principle that the end justifies the means. This is how most human beings, in fact, are introduced to evil. They are not pushed into evil by a strong desire to do wicked things, but by people who persuade them that evil is necessary to achieve some greater good, and that the good justifies the evil. And this is what has happened to us with the war in Kosovo.
If we accept the principle that no rules govern the conduct of any war effort as long as its ends are themselves believed to be justified, then distinctions that have been very important in our policy over the last several decades cease to be tenable. Consider in particular the stand we have taken on terrorism during that period, and against governments that are willing to support, aid and abet terrorist organizations. Terrorism is a form of war, and it is one likely to be taken up by those without nuclear weapons, multi-billion dollar economies, and other such things.
Typically, the terrorist "combatants" will be disadvantaged in the conventional assets of war and consider themselves to be oppressed by countries they regard as affluent and powerful. They therefore seek to stop this oppression by disrupting the oppressive country through inducing fear and terror amongst the civilian population. The terrorist goal is to use fear to force civilians to put pressure on their government to change those policies to which the terrorists object. This is the overall rationale behind much of the global terrorism practiced by various groups over the past few decades -- some of them mere rogue networks, others more determinately connected to sponsoring states.
The American position has been that the approach to war that targets civilian populations, producing terror aimed at accomplishing political goals, is terrorism, and is deeply morally objectionable. We have proscribed various nations from regular relations with the United States because of their participation in such acts of terrorism. But if the Lieberman account of our strategy in Yugoslavia reflects our new national view, then we are saying that it is justified to adopt a strategy aiming to terrorize a civilian population in order to attain political goals. We will be abandoning the notion that there are norms and rules which put terrorism beyond the pale. We will instead be saying that terrorism is morally acceptable so long as it is practiced by us, but that it remains bad when practiced by others. The message we are sending is that as long as we think what we are doing is right, anything goes.
But how many terrorists believe what they are doing is wrong? Generally speaking, they are very self-righteous people convinced what they are doing is right and necessary in order to deal with injustices perpetrated somehow against groups or causes that they consider important.
In fact, terrorism is usually adopted by the weaker against the stronger, and the United States is usually stronger than its opponents. So the stand we are taking is very likely to reduce our ability to create effective coalitions in the world against terrorist activities, and to police those activities so as to safeguard our people and others in the world. We are also, of course, offering additional moral encouragement to terrorists themselves, who must be emboldened when they reflect that they are just doing what big countries do, even if they have to deliver their bombs manually instead of in fancy aircraft.
So the fruit of the NATO aggression will be a world in which we have dismissed or forgotten all of the high-minded talk of the post-war era supposedly aimed at establishing norms of decency and conscience -- even with respect to the awful business of war. But this should break our hearts, because it means that all the tragedies and horrors we have gone through in this century, and the high principles that we have offered the world in explanation for the sacrifices we have made, will have been thrown away to follow Bill Clinton in reestablishing the barbaric concepts of warfare and policy we said we were fighting against.
This deadening of conscience has its roots in our willingness to tolerate, even foster, a culture of death and mayhem right here at home. We have turned our backs on fundamental principles of truth with respect to our moral obligation toward innocent and defenseless human life. The same mentality that says, "It's OK to bomb 'em back to the Stone Age because it will achieve our war objectives" can be heard saying that we should do research on human embryos because we can achieve great medical benefits. Present both in the war in Yugoslavia and the war on the unborn is the same dead conscience, the same willingness to act as if there were no governing moral principles that must override our profiteering, materialistic interests, or our war aims, or whatever else may tempt us.
The evil of our effort in Kosovo is the working out of consequences of deeper evils in our national life and conscience. We should keep in mind that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton have said that the NATO action in Yugoslavia is just the beginning. They view this war as a precedent for a new internationalism, and expect similar interventions to happen regularly. So while they will no doubt give us a little breather before pushing us into some other perverse adventure, we will eventually taste the bitter fruit the precedent the Kosovo war represents. Our "victory" in Yugoslavia, should it occur, will be worse than hollow -- it will be ripe with the seeds of greater evil to come, now that America has begun to teach the world that the end justifies the means.
worldnetdaily.com |
