Sunday, March 14, 2004
The Benefits of Lashing Out
Sometime after the 9/11 attacks, The Onion published one of it's "Point-Counterpoint" features. One author wrote "We Should Retaliate With Blind Rage" and the other wrote "We Should Retaliate With Measured Focused Rage". This was, I think, one of the few places where retaliating blindly was advocated in print. There was also Ann Coulter's article, but she's truly nuts.
But the notion that blind retaliation is being considered by some as a policy option seems to linger. To some degree, this is because we are engaged in war against terrorism. Against all terrorism? Not really. But calling it a war against "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" would damage the prospects of winning the war in the name of defining it more precisely - a semantic and Pyrrhic victory. The US and allied countries are primarily trying to destroy a specific network of terrorists - Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations. No serious effort has been initiated against Hezbollah, which also has a frightening global network. Ask the average American what kind of terrorism we're fighting and they're not going to think of the Irish variety. Americans generally know who is being targeted, even if the war retains a very vague label.
Does terrorism have root causes? Sure. Should those be addressed? Of course, once you go beyond platitudes. (It's like the realm of law enforcement - you want to put rapists away but you also want to eliminate the child abuse that helps to create future offenders) But addressing them is distinct from appeasing them. The terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11 were the products of a milieu that taught them to despise the West even while they lived there. They were radicalized in mosques funded by Saudi money, trained by a terrorist organization funded by Saudis and abetted by the Taliban and its ISI sponsors. Breaking this cycle will mean breaking the financial and political structures that are so intent on generating violent nihilist hatred. It will also mean assisting in the development of a new Middle East. The ideological kin of the Madrid bombers are intent on slaughtering Shiites in Iraq and Pakistan. If you ask the killers, the root cause of this rage is the existence of Shia Islam and its own (legitimate) political aspirations. Their hatred of Shiites is as unconditional as their hatred of the West. But it is not up to the Shia to somehow ameliorate the causes that are leading to their being targeted - it is up to all of us to assail structures of intolerance (be they Islamist or otherwise) and aid those advocating tolerance. This will require offensive action and taking the struggle across foreign borders.
Sometime after the 9/11 attacks, The Onion published one of it's "Point-Counterpoint" features. One author wrote "We Should Retaliate With Blind Rage" and the other wrote "We Should Retaliate With Measured Focused Rage". This was, I think, one of the few places where retaliating blindly was advocated in print. There was also Ann Coulter's article, but she's truly nuts.
But the notion that blind retaliation is being considered by some as a policy option seems to linger. To some degree, this is because we are engaged in war against terrorism. Against all terrorism? Not really. But calling it a war against "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" would damage the prospects of winning the war in the name of defining it more precisely - a semantic and Pyrrhic victory. The US and allied countries are primarily trying to destroy a specific network of terrorists - Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations. No serious effort has been initiated against Hezbollah, which also has a frightening global network. Ask the average American what kind of terrorism we're fighting and they're not going to think of the Irish variety. Americans generally know who is being targeted, even if the war retains a very vague label.
Does terrorism have root causes? Sure. Should those be addressed? Of course, once you go beyond platitudes. (It's like the realm of law enforcement - you want to put rapists away but you also want to eliminate the child abuse that helps to create future offenders) But addressing them is distinct from appeasing them. The terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11 were the products of a milieu that taught them to despise the West even while they lived there. They were radicalized in mosques funded by Saudi money, trained by a terrorist organization funded by Saudis and abetted by the Taliban and its ISI sponsors. Breaking this cycle will mean breaking the financial and political structures that are so intent on generating violent nihilist hatred. It will also mean assisting in the development of a new Middle East. The ideological kin of the Madrid bombers are intent on slaughtering Shiites in Iraq and Pakistan. If you ask the killers, the root cause of this rage is the existence of Shia Islam and its own (legitimate) political aspirations. Their hatred of Shiites is as unconditional as their hatred of the West. But it is not up to the Shia to somehow ameliorate the causes that are leading to their being targeted - it is up to all of us to assail structures of intolerance (be they Islamist or otherwise) and aid those advocating tolerance. This will require offensive action and taking the struggle across foreign borders.
