Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA 'OWN GOALS' IN THE GWOT
War against Terror by William F Simmons 
War against Terror By William F. Simmons March 20, 2004 Our "war against terror" is a term that is so ill-defined that it enables demagogues to change definitions and terms of reference without it ever being apparent that a change has been made. When we can lump organizations together like al-Qa'idah, the ETA, the IRA, Hamas, and the like, it is hard to know exactly what we are fighting, much less how to fight it. All of these organizations have different goals; but they might well have adopted similar tactics. The characterization in vogue of what a terrorist is strains credulity. George Bush and Tony Blair both have described them as craven and depraved ghouls, driven by blind hatred, intent on wanton destruction. They are driven to this depraved state because they "hate our way of life", or because they "hate freedom". Specifically, they are never characterized as people who might be employing their methods in response to outrages that we might well have perpetrated upon them first. And, certainly, they are not the sort of people who might stop doing what they are doing if they succeed in bringing about a pre-determined outcome. The fact is that many people in the Middle East regard Osama Ben-Laden as a highly religious individual, and not just his followers. Reprehensible? Maybe. But it might be instructive to point out at this juncture that George Bush blessed every one of the smart bombs that we dropped into the bedrooms of Baghdad. The overtly religious tenor of Bush's crusade was unmistakable. And Tony Blair used words such as "evil" liberally. It is not hard to imagine the vitriolic invectives that Arabs flung back at the moving images of Bush or Blair on the television screen as they made their religious or moralistic rationalizations for visiting upon the Iraqi population a degree of violence that dwarfed the violence that was visited upon the United States in September, 2001. Nor should we be surprised to find this sullen resentment in the breasts of those who were directly targeted alone, but also in those who identified with them or sympathized with them in any substantial way. To make this perfectly plain, we should not be surprised if Saudis feel ire when they see Palestinians being killed by American weapons at the hands of the Israelis. We should not be surprised that Arabs and the wider Muslim community goes half-crazy when they see the West push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and shackle him and his countrymen with cruel economic sanctions, while we let Israel keep its vicious occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, now in its 37th year, and economically reward the occupiers to boot. And we should not be surprised that some Moroccans might well be enraged by seeing Iraqis ground into hamburger by American military robots (smart bombs), or by soldiers so technologically advanced that there is no fair contest. If a robot qualifies as a soldier, then perhaps, so does a suicide bomber. It is a historic fact that Britain and France colluded during the prosecution of the First World War which directly and permanently thwarted the political will of the area. The results of this interference is not a figment of the imagination of the Arabs. As much as European leaders today cry foul at the supposed manipulation of Spanish politics by Moroccan terrorists, the degree of dislocation that will result from this, as tragic as the loss of life may be, does not hold a candle to the dislocation that England and France caused in the Middle East in the aftermath of World War I. And let us not forget our incessant meddling in the area to this very day. We will not tolerate Arabs meddling in our political affairs, skewing our collective national will, as the outcry about the Spanish election illustrates. But we have never yet stopped meddling in the political affairs of the Arabs. And let us not speak of "skewing" their political will; nay, let us rather speak of "thwarting" and "denying" theirs. Arabs across the Middle East are weaned on stories, declaimed by their embittered elders, of one Western intrusion after another. This resentment transcends the recently-created "national borders", drawn in their sand by western hands, and without their consent. Nor do they have to resort to stale stories from World War I to find evidence for such western interference. All they have to do is to point to the latest western initiative, probably mentioned in that day's current news: the forcible military invasion and ouster of Arab leader Saddam Hussein; the forcible military invasion and ouster of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; the US-inspired and initiated inspections of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction; the militarily-enforced blockade of Iraq; the US-initiated economic blockade of Iraq which resulted in the death of perhaps half a million Iraqi infants; the decade of US military presence in Saudi Arabia; the US economic sanctions of Iran; the US bombing of the al-Qa'idah camps in Afghanistan; the US bombing of the phamacuitical factory in Sudan; the military invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait; the support of the West to cancel the outcome of the popular vote in Algeria, in which Muslim fundamentalists had prevailed; the bombing of the residence of Lybian leader Mo'ammar al-Qaddafi; the proxy war of the US with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; the proxy war of the US (et al.) against Iran via Saddam Hussein's Iraq; the intervention of the US in the Yom Kippur war that stopped the Egyptian advance into Israel; and on, and on. And all this activism should be set against the continual refusal of the West to insist that the Israeli government be held to the same admirably high-minded standards to which we hold the Arab regimes. This is not about "re-educating" the Arabs on the facts, as contemplated by the new American TV station "al-Hurrah". These incursions are not the fruit of some delusional imaginings of the Arab or Muslim mind. As one day bleeds into the next, can we really say that these things do not appear as an unremitting crusade of the West against the Arab world, or the House of Islam? And it is not just a matter of perspective. We have in fact killed far more Arabs, either directly or by proxy, than they have killed of us. And we have in fact ruined far more of their economies and fortunes, and disrupted to a far greater degree their political will for our own convenience, than they could ever dream to effect against us. And we wonder in amazement why would an Arab want to grab the nearest stick of dynamite and blow to bits any westerner he could? even if it meant killing himself too? "It is because of Islamic fundamentalism!", we declaim. Nonsense. "It is because of poverty, or because they can't get a job.", we whimper. Balderdash. The plain and simple truth is that Islamic fundamentalism is just the whipping boy for this entirely unrelated anger -- an anger for which we westerners have only ourselves to blame. We have repeatedly stuck our noses into their affairs and had the unmitigated gall to invoke our high-minded principles of self-determination as reasons for doing so, and pushed people around to effect an outcome beneficial for us, while not paying the slightest regard to how that outcome might impact them. Beware of the situation in which one side always wins and the other always loses. Violence will soon be vented, and it may not be in proportion to the event that seems to provoke it. The response of the Bush Administration to the events of 9/11 was infantile in the extreme. It was understandable at a certain level, to be sure. But ultimately it was an infantile reaction. It was clear before forces were even sent that fighting terrorism by interfering even more profoundly in the Middle East could do nothing but produce more terrorism. It should also be clear that our "war on terrorism" is not a fight that can be won. It is like our "war against communism". Killing people who subscribe to a certain point of view does not kill that point of view. Frequently it only serves to reinforce it. Fighting terrorism by killing people in al-Qa'idah will neither put al-Qa'idah out of business, nor snuff out terror, because the very fight against terror will only provoke more. It is time that we Westerners -- the United States and Europe -- stand up on our two hind feet and face this challenge with a recognition of what fuel we might well have thrown into the fire ourselves. And if it seems to be an act of appeasement to be forced to address the concerns that motivate these acts of desperation, we should make sure that we are not once again using this as a way to shirk our own responsibility for the situation in which we now find ourselves. Simmons studied the Hebrew language at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the Arabic language at the Jordanian University in Amman. |