Fighting terror with terror makes the whole world safe?
When you talk things out with others about issues that simply make no sense to you, you start to realize that they make no sense to anyone. An example of which is why would a government "intending" to instill democracy in another country begin by completely destroying the infrastructure of that country (by strategically bombing power plants, major roadways, etc) ensure rampant unemployment, not bother to educate its soldiers on cultural differences or assure translators so civilians aren't "accidentally" shot on their way to stand in those unemployment lines--if the final result to all of this madness is supposed to be a stable, democratic society? Why would another government figure that driving tanks into a REFUGEE camp, essentially terrorizing an already traumatized people, would ensure their safety? (According to a press release from AP 36 minutes ago, Israeli tanks drove into
Jebaliya) Yes, rocks can't do too much damage to tanks, even children know this yet they continue to throw them at tanks and at armed soldiers. This act of driving tanks into refugee camps, it would seem, is intended to "fight terror with terror" in retaliation for/
"response to the killing of two Israeli preschoolers by a Palestinian rocket fired from the area a day before" (AP). This is all ironic if you consider that Gandhi's birthday is October 2nd and it would seem his much quoted but little heeded critique of the "old for an eye" mentality, figures even less in our understanding of "terrorism" and subsequent response to terrorism today.
What is also ironic is how much these leaders claim to be acting out of "faith." Faith in what?
Themselves? Their military might? It certainly doesn't seem to be out of foresight or any serious contemplation on the long term consequences of fighting terror with more bombs, more bullets and more lives. Tonight is the foreign policy debate between bush and kerry and I'm curious to know if they'll get past the easy rhetoric into answering hard questions. Such as,
How can you "win" a war on terror by creating terror/fostering terror/fingering "terrorists" in certain countries with certain ethnicities but not everywhere)? What is your proof that your strategic bombing and your stop loss policies aren't in fact creating the conditions for increasing and worsening terrorist attacks in the U.S. and around the world? How's Afghanistan these days and how has our "presence" there improved the lives and wellbeing of Afghani's? Hasn't this whole "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" approach to foreign policy worn out it's welcome? Isn't it high time for a more progressive, humane, rational approach that centers around the hard but true realization that we are not the center of the globe, nor of the universe and that if we ruin the earth for future generations we better damn well hope we've got the moon ready to inhabit? Or in short, can't we use some of our enormous global wealth and resources in sound policy making that takes into account our interdependence and interconnectedness before its too late? Before we run out of places to outsource and better the world for the sake of capitalism? Before we install and arm too many puppet governments (as if we haven't already) and preach the gospel of human rights to the ears of those tortured, imprisoned and murdered by the very government leaders we train, fund and protect? How about a new approach to foreign policy? How about one that actually uses our "power" in ways that actually DO bring stability, by helping to erradicate TREATABLE and preventable disease and hunger? How about ending the trade in arms entirely? People need their basic needs met much more than they need an assault rifle or the latest, greatest aircraft and tanks. How about educating ourselves and our troops on what international law does entail and about cultural differnces that may help them and the civilian populations of places we occupy militarily, survive the duration without mutually assured annihilation? Well, there are countless other issues that could really use some serious consideration in this global fight against terrorism. Personally, I can't wait for Mary Robinson's lecture at our university. I imagine she has some rather interesting perspectives on these issues that the two "candidates" won't even touch on national t.v.
I'm also going to try to scrape together enough money to send myself to the Harvard Law School Human Rights Conference in mid-October. If that doesn't happen, I would love to spend the summer studying human rights and international law in Geneva. Mostly though, I look forward to the day that the chatter around these issues becomes too loud to ignore and too powerful to be silenced. Right now, the mainstream media seems quite adept at making such points marginal at best but, as even my son has pointed out, it makes no sense to bomb or drive tanks over unarmed people in the hopes of convincing the few who do have weapons to stop shooting at you. Sure, such tactics have an immediate (terrorizing) impact on people. But they also have long term consequences that are sure to be your loss in the unending battle to win the hearts and minds of those you are bombing/napalming/razing etc. You don't need to look too far back into history to see this either. The Vietnam war, that is at the center of questions of character surrounding the two candidates' wartime service, offers more than enough proof of the ineffectiveness and harm of fighting terror with terror.
peace!
1 Comments:
The proposals you make regarding how better to create a truly stable society (as opposed to one cowed by power) all make perfect sense to me as well. What is sad, though, is that it seems we now (at least in this country) lack the vision that allows us to see beyond the next election. Thus, those proposals that must, by their very nature, transcend politics and become long-term national policy fall victim to inaction or, at best, underfunding. Hell: we all know and have known that the Baby Boomers are just about to start retiring in the millions, yet our representatives lack the political will needed to deal the effects of those retirements on Social Security and health care. If we lack the foresight and intestinal fortitude to honestly discuss and act on anticipated needs in our OWN country, we're indeed poorly equipped to do so in other nations.
If we truly don't want to invest time and material and money in the job but would rather pay lip service to true nation-building, then we should empower the UN to do so by getting out of its way. In Iraq, we've already done that, sort of, by seeking UN help with establishing the transitional/interim governments. But Colin Powell said it best to President Bush before the invasion: If you break it, you've bought it. And I'm really afraid that a) the current adminsitration doesn't (publicly) realize the full ramifications of that statement; b) a Kerry administration might not, either; c) no matter who wins in November, the desire to get out of Iraq as quickly (not even gracefully) as possible will be seen as the politically-expedient thing to do, the Iraqis be damned; and, saddest, d) our experience in Iraq will make us hesititate in the face of future, genuine crises of the sort the Bush administration claimed existed in Iraq; thus leading to e) we will have, for perhaps decades to come, lost face as the champion of freedom in the world. And THAT is something that even Kerry, no matter his promises, can only begin to fix under even the best of circumstances.
Sorry--I got carried away. But it's maddening to me when these things seem so obvious to me and yet people in power, who are much smarter than I and whose love of this nation I don't doubt, are driven by politics rather than vision into suffering from a sort of myopia of the intellect and the imagination.
Post a Comment
<< Home