|
|
last updated 12/14/2003 |
|
Date: Thu, 9 Jan
From: Jessica deG. Subject: new essay To: carl@wastedirony.com Just a quick note... It is NOT a war on Al-Qaeda, as you have written. Yes, they actually committed the heinous acts of September 11, 2001, but the problem does not end with Al-Qaeda. In fact, Hezbollah and Hamas are considered even more dangerous. And while we're on the subject of the war, Iraq is not a separate issue. The "War on Terror" and a "war on Iraq" is one and the same. Saddam Hussein is simply a more powerful terrorist with stated ambitions to bring down the United States. And as we all know, governments lie: so you can understand me when I question the contention that Timothy McVeigh was the sole mastermind behind OK City. Take a look at the evidence... Iraq is all over it. Thanks for your time. -Jessica deG. Well, obvious Jessica is just a little bit tetched. If Iraq were all over the Tim McVeigh bombing the government damn well would have shown us the evidence in order to justify the war they are so eager to have with Iraq. So there is no evidence. Unless only Jessica has it--beamed to her by those little men in the flying saucers?. (Yes, Jessica, I know governments lie, but only when it's in their interests: tell me what interest the US government has in covering up a link between McVeigh and Iraq?) But, she makes a point about the "War on Terror" and how it is connected to Saddam, a point which is often made by other (less "interesting") people. which makes me think that now is a good time to discuss the use and misuse of the concept of terrorism. Terrorism What does it mean? Taking up my American Heritage Dictionary, I find: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." As a definition it's a bit broad. After all, doesn't this pretty much define war? Using force to coerce or intimidate people? What makes war different from terrorism? Legality? Well, I may think it's legal for me to bomb you, but you probably think it's grossly illegal. What makes my opinion right and yours wrong? Or vice versa? It's been said so often that it's a cliche: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Or solider. Or militant. But it's a cliche because it's true. Using violence and fear of violence to gain your ends has been done by every nation since the beginnings of history. When the United States dropped 100s of thousands of pounds of explosives on villages in Vietnam, wasn't that terrorism? If you say "no", why? Because our actions were legal? Because the Vietnamese were bad people? I hope most people see the shallowness of such logic. The Nazis called the French and Yugoslav guerillas who blew up their trains and ambushed their soldiers "terrorists," although most of us would probably agree that "freedom fighters" was a more accurate description. "Terrorism" as it's currently used is an Orwellian word. It doesn't really mean much except that you don't agree with whoever you call a terrorist. Palestinians refer to Israeli terrorism, Israelis to Palestinian terrorism; Chechens talk about Russian terrorism and Russians denounce Chechen terrorism. The 9/11 bombers were terrorists because they attacked our buildings. When we launched a cruise missile strike on a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 we were making a justified military strike. A better definition of terrorism is: "The use of lethal violence against random innocents." It's not the violence which is so terrible, but the fact that the violence is used against helpless civilians who have no means of defending themselves and at best limited responsibility for any government's policies. The horror people feel for terrorism stems from their instinctive recognition that deliberately killing civilians is an inherently immoral act. Over the course of centuries western societies developed rules regarding warfare and one of the most central is that military combatants should only target military combatants. Sadly, in the 20th century these rules were eroded. German bombing campaigns against English cities and Allied bombing campaigns against German and Japanese cities to a large extant were deliberate attempt to terrorize civilian populations. I don't really know what else you can call the creators of these bombing campaigns but terrorists. In the case of the Americans, their goal--defeating Germany--was certainly laudable, but their methods were immoral. Soldiers should not target women and children. After 1945, terrorism, first used by governments, began to be used by guerilla movements and conspirators with political goals. Jewish terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in 1946, Chinese terrorists targeted civilians in Malaya, Irish terrorists targeted British civilians, and Palestinian terrorists targeted Israeli citizens. Governments led the way and non-governmental groups followed suit. Here in the 21st century, we live in a world where terrorism has become standard opperating procedure for militant extremists. The problem with these methods (beyond their immorality) is that they taint the causes they are supposed to advance. Palestinians have a legitimate right to self-government, but when Palestinian militants strap bombs to themselves and blow up women and children on buses, they act as immoral terrorists. We should not allow our revulsion at terrorism to stop us from considering the worthiness of a cause, but we often do (and this is quite understandable). This all makes the "War on Terror" problematic. As I stated before, we are not at war with terror, we are at war with an extremist group that uses terror. If tomorrow Osama bin Laden issued a proclamation saying that from now on his followers would only target U.S. military targets instead of civilians, we would not suddenly declare peace. And if we were really at war with all terrorists, we'd be intervening against terrorist activities around the world, but we aren't. For example, we don't have any plans to send the 82nd Airborne division to Sri Lanka to help their government fight against the Tamil terrorists who have been blowing up civilians for years. We don't target all terrorists, just those who threaten our safety and interests. We are not at war with all evil-doers around the world. (Although in an ideal world we would be working with the family of nations to eliminate such horrors wherever they might be found.) Now is Saddam Hussein a legitimate target of the United States? He certainly qualifies as an occasional state terrorist. He has targeted Shia Muslim Arabs in the south of Iraq and used poison gas against the Kurds in the north. (Although while he was gassing Kurds in the 1980s, the United States, aware of these war crimes, was busy funnelling him military aid and advice in his war with Iran.) But the fact that he was a terrorist in the past does not put him at war with the United States. Hussein has also tried in the past to build weapons of mass destruction, but while this is evil, it is not isolated. Many other countries have tried and succeeded in acquiring these weapons (including our allies France, Britain, Pakistan, and Israel). So the question comes down to: Is Hussein a threat to the safety of the United States? This is separate issue, unconnected, despite Bush administration hints to the contrary, to the misnamed "War on Terror." Iraq has not targeted American civilians. He has not carried out terrorist attacks against our people. He has no link to the 9/11 killers. So it might be possible to make a case for invading Iraq--many have done so--but we should not be doing it by trying to vaguely link Hussein with "The War on Terror." And we should do our best to stop abusing the word "terrorism." Terror is a method not an opponent. Hamas, for example, does use terrorism, but that does not necessarily make them an enemy of the United States. We need to carefully pick and choose our battles. And our words. |
Home
What is WastedIrony? Contact WastedIrony WastedIrony Mailbag Irony Certified Links ESSAYS Irony is dead Israel for Beginners Pt 1 Israel for Beginners Pt 2 Israel for Beginners Pt 3 Israel for Beginners Pt 4 Commercial Drama Thoughts on Terrorism Marijuana America: Rogue State No War in Iraq Invasion words and reaction Mar 22 Protest Pics War Daze  Post-war thoughts, 5/22/03
MISCELLANEA CoulterWatch |