Jim Stillman
Nevar
How to Win the War against Terrorists Without Losing Everything – Part III
July 29th 2007 11:37
A “pyrric victory”, named after King Pyrrhus of ancient Epirus, an area on the Baltic, has some present relevance. The King defeated the army of Rome, but at a horrible cost in casualties. While it is most closely associated with a military battle, the term is used by analogy in fields such as business, politics, law, literature, and sport to describe any similar struggle which is ruinous for the victor.
In the first post on the Iraq, middle-east quagmire and terrorist threats, I discussed my views of what immediate action the United States must take to extricate ourselves from the civil war in Iraq.
In the second post in this series, I proposed a road map for the future. We must, I suggested, take the threat of Islamic terrorist seriously, we must be prepared to face up the fact that great sacrifice must be made by all of the American people and that we must demand honesty and candor from our leaders.
If we do all of this, we can survive the terrorist threat. But will we, like King Pyrrhus find that the cost of “winning” is too high? I first ask a question that is difficult to ask and more difficult to answer.
Why should we survive terrorists’ attacks? Why should our system be victorious?
One response is that the Western democracies stand for values that we, and many others, accept as superior, moral, decent and worth preserving. We believe in diversity in matters of faith and personal behavior. We strive for equality among our citizens, even if we do not succeed in meeting our ideals, as in providing health care to everyone. We do not condemn the female half of our citizen body to second-class status; we do not stone or beat adulterers. We believe in the rule of law, due process, judicial and legislative oversight of executive action. We believe that no one, including the president or other high officials of a duly elected government, is beyond and above the rule of law.
Should we give up these ideals and aspirations, even temporarily, if it appears that the relinquishment would aid in the struggle?
If we did so, would we be different from those who would destroy us?
Our leaders have adopted a policy of inducing fear in the public as a rationale for the elimination of or dramatic limitations on our justice system and the rule of law. When we act thusly, we become no better than those who would destroy us; we forfeit the moral superiority upon which we depend.
Let us first discuss and examine the practice of rendition and torture. Over the past years, we have given up on the one characteristic that set us apart from much of the world: a sense of moral superiority. We have reluctantly acknowledged that the United States has operated secret prisons in other countries where torture is or may be used in extracting intelligence, although it is generally accepted that torture does not gain truthful information; the subject will say anything that his captors want in order to stop the treatment. The Administration asserts that to limit outrageous behavior would be dangerous to the country.
President Bush’s administration continues to promote fear among the populace as an excuse for reducing our freedoms. The Administration claims to have the authority, without judicial or legislative other oversight, to suspend habeas corpus, tap telephones, search computers, even library reading lists
.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution permits searches of persons and property, if reasonable grounds exist, but only after a court has issued a specific authorization. The wholesale warrant-less invasion of privacy is unprecedented. No one seriously objects to searches and seizures involving real terrorists or their threats. (No one seriously objects to removing his or her shoes and discarding shampoo before boarding an airplane, even if the procedure seems silly and pointless.) Better the president would address the nation, garner support for an all-out attack on terrorists
It is the unilateral usurpation by the administration that is objectionable. There exist special courts which can authorize wire taps, clandestine searches and other invasions of privacy. The administration is not satisfied with this approach because it requires justification to be demonstrated.
The Administration asserts that "unconventional" means of extracting intelligence is necessary. History has demonstrated, however, that torture and other inhumane actions by the United States are totally counter-productive.
But what of the argument that we are in a war with terrorists?
While the term "war" is much overused, we are in a world-wide conflict with those who would destroy us and our allies.
The Islamic terrorists are not a conventional army or opponent. They wear no uniforms, have no honorable code of conduct and do not operate from a recognized nation-state. Our adherence to moral behavior and standards will neither encourage nor discourage their behavior or their very real threat to the United States. The president’s men suggest that the terrorists react to our alleged weakness. Rubbish. Al Qaeda operates on its own schedule.
We must be ever vigilant that we take the "high road", that we continue to be the beacon of proper behavior. If we lose that position and example to the world, then we are no better than the terrorists. Indeed we are doing their work, the destruction of western civilization and of the United States.
We see the illiteracy, poverty and injustices rampant in the third world, especially in Muslim countries, notably Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Palestinian territories and Saudi Arabia. We have, in my opinion, a naive view that, if only we can eradicate poverty and illiteracy and give the common people employment and hope, they will rush to western-style democracy. It's not going to happen.
Our enemies are not going to embrace democracy. It is not a question of their being unfamiliar with the concept; they have studied democracy and repudiated it, believing it violates their culture and faith. The Islamic fanatic terrorists reject all for which we stand and, until the moderate governments in the region want to bring peace to the region, there will be young men and women willing to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up Westerners and those perceived to be our friends. There will be no peace in the Middle East until countries that support terrorists and bankroll them fall themselves. No one has a real grasp of when this might happen, but it is certainly a matter of years.
Until then, we must do whatever is possible, within the framework of our essential principles and liberties, to protect our citizens and friends abroad. The initiative to perform a terrorist attack, unfortunately, is that of the terrorist. To act peremptorily is counter-productive; not only does it violate the principles that make us great, it won't work. We should try and anticipate, surely, but not at the cost of destroying everything this country has always stood for.
If we do ignore our history, traditions and ideals, we are no better than those who attack us.
In the first post on the Iraq, middle-east quagmire and terrorist threats, I discussed my views of what immediate action the United States must take to extricate ourselves from the civil war in Iraq.
In the second post in this series, I proposed a road map for the future. We must, I suggested, take the threat of Islamic terrorist seriously, we must be prepared to face up the fact that great sacrifice must be made by all of the American people and that we must demand honesty and candor from our leaders.
If we do all of this, we can survive the terrorist threat. But will we, like King Pyrrhus find that the cost of “winning” is too high? I first ask a question that is difficult to ask and more difficult to answer.
Why should we survive terrorists’ attacks? Why should our system be victorious?
One response is that the Western democracies stand for values that we, and many others, accept as superior, moral, decent and worth preserving. We believe in diversity in matters of faith and personal behavior. We strive for equality among our citizens, even if we do not succeed in meeting our ideals, as in providing health care to everyone. We do not condemn the female half of our citizen body to second-class status; we do not stone or beat adulterers. We believe in the rule of law, due process, judicial and legislative oversight of executive action. We believe that no one, including the president or other high officials of a duly elected government, is beyond and above the rule of law.
Should we give up these ideals and aspirations, even temporarily, if it appears that the relinquishment would aid in the struggle?
If we did so, would we be different from those who would destroy us?
Our leaders have adopted a policy of inducing fear in the public as a rationale for the elimination of or dramatic limitations on our justice system and the rule of law. When we act thusly, we become no better than those who would destroy us; we forfeit the moral superiority upon which we depend.
Let us first discuss and examine the practice of rendition and torture. Over the past years, we have given up on the one characteristic that set us apart from much of the world: a sense of moral superiority. We have reluctantly acknowledged that the United States has operated secret prisons in other countries where torture is or may be used in extracting intelligence, although it is generally accepted that torture does not gain truthful information; the subject will say anything that his captors want in order to stop the treatment. The Administration asserts that to limit outrageous behavior would be dangerous to the country.
President Bush’s administration continues to promote fear among the populace as an excuse for reducing our freedoms. The Administration claims to have the authority, without judicial or legislative other oversight, to suspend habeas corpus, tap telephones, search computers, even library reading lists
.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution permits searches of persons and property, if reasonable grounds exist, but only after a court has issued a specific authorization. The wholesale warrant-less invasion of privacy is unprecedented. No one seriously objects to searches and seizures involving real terrorists or their threats. (No one seriously objects to removing his or her shoes and discarding shampoo before boarding an airplane, even if the procedure seems silly and pointless.) Better the president would address the nation, garner support for an all-out attack on terrorists
It is the unilateral usurpation by the administration that is objectionable. There exist special courts which can authorize wire taps, clandestine searches and other invasions of privacy. The administration is not satisfied with this approach because it requires justification to be demonstrated.
The Administration asserts that "unconventional" means of extracting intelligence is necessary. History has demonstrated, however, that torture and other inhumane actions by the United States are totally counter-productive.
But what of the argument that we are in a war with terrorists?
While the term "war" is much overused, we are in a world-wide conflict with those who would destroy us and our allies.
The Islamic terrorists are not a conventional army or opponent. They wear no uniforms, have no honorable code of conduct and do not operate from a recognized nation-state. Our adherence to moral behavior and standards will neither encourage nor discourage their behavior or their very real threat to the United States. The president’s men suggest that the terrorists react to our alleged weakness. Rubbish. Al Qaeda operates on its own schedule.
We must be ever vigilant that we take the "high road", that we continue to be the beacon of proper behavior. If we lose that position and example to the world, then we are no better than the terrorists. Indeed we are doing their work, the destruction of western civilization and of the United States.
We see the illiteracy, poverty and injustices rampant in the third world, especially in Muslim countries, notably Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Palestinian territories and Saudi Arabia. We have, in my opinion, a naive view that, if only we can eradicate poverty and illiteracy and give the common people employment and hope, they will rush to western-style democracy. It's not going to happen.
Our enemies are not going to embrace democracy. It is not a question of their being unfamiliar with the concept; they have studied democracy and repudiated it, believing it violates their culture and faith. The Islamic fanatic terrorists reject all for which we stand and, until the moderate governments in the region want to bring peace to the region, there will be young men and women willing to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up Westerners and those perceived to be our friends. There will be no peace in the Middle East until countries that support terrorists and bankroll them fall themselves. No one has a real grasp of when this might happen, but it is certainly a matter of years.
Until then, we must do whatever is possible, within the framework of our essential principles and liberties, to protect our citizens and friends abroad. The initiative to perform a terrorist attack, unfortunately, is that of the terrorist. To act peremptorily is counter-productive; not only does it violate the principles that make us great, it won't work. We should try and anticipate, surely, but not at the cost of destroying everything this country has always stood for.
If we do ignore our history, traditions and ideals, we are no better than those who attack us.
| 82 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
I would also add that it is a mistake to just say "Muslim" terrorists....I am certain that if the same social conditions existed in America, there would be terrorism every bit as vile from Christian fanatics. Religious fanatacism is enemy, not one particular religion. And that fanatacism can only flourish when social injustice is rampant...
Jim, you close by saying if we abandon our ideals we are as bad as those who attack us...I would argue that we are much worse...just like there is a different standard applied to a child playing with matches and an adult arsonist, we should know better. WIth all the resources America has, it is the essence of cowardice to say we need to give up our very identity in order to fight small groups of terrorists with very little ability to actually cause harm. (for example, 9/11 could have been stopped with basic law enforcement or airport security, the Bush admin proved it couldn't bring us either one, but they sure got a nice excuse to launch perpetual war...
Comment by Sheree
Cliche Murder
Sorry mate.
Terrorists don't act out of a disregard for western democracy and a social value system different to their own.
Terrorists don't even adhere to the laws of the alleged religion in question.
They are political extremists seeking political goals due to a political quagmire that so called Western democracies have inflicted upon their countries.
You want to end the 'War against terrorists'? Have a chat to your governments about the history that really started this western war and you may want to re-think the motivations on both sides.
Comment by Damo
You post is well written and makes some valid points
Ie: We lose the war on terrorism when we become like them. (forgive my poetic license)
However perhaps I can add a little information.
Terrorism is a tactic only.
Terrorist may have an ideology that justifies the use of terrorism tactics but terrorism is no way an ideology.
It is a crime pure and simple.
Removing regimes that sponsor terrorism will not necessarily bring the problem to a close. AK47's are cheap and plentiful. You can make some damn good explosives with what is avaliable from a Supermarket. However despite this terrorist attacks are few and far between.
Defining terrorism is equally problematic. Even more problematic when we get down to terrorism sympathizers. How do we define sympathy? Support the goal but rejecting the tactics? Understanding the grievances with out justifying the violent retaliation?
Terrorist groups are like the Mafia, they gain support when the ligitimate governments terrorize the population. The cycle of violence begins. They gain more support the more they are terrorized.
Finally there is an attitude which I have see come from governments and politicians that perpetual war is good. They see war as unifying and elevates people to selfless act of sacrifice. People can be easily led in times of war and reluctant to question the leaders. It may be possible that the war on terror was never meant to have an end...ever.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Has it occured to you yet that information is the key to our survival? Maybe you should talk to some of the 9-11 survivors or their families and ask them if they're glad their loved ones died. You might discover that if the information had been gleaned (from whatever means, wire taps, "torture" or whatever) to stop the attacks and their loved ones had survived, they would gladly make the trade. Ever hear of "fighting fire with fire", Jim? In the old West there was a very wise saying, "Never take a knife to a gunfight." Would you have us defend ourselves with the "Marquess of Queensbury Rules" against people who won't abide by ANY rules other than mass murder? News flash, Jim, that's a guaranteed way to lose.
It amazes me how you libs/dems can accuse Pres. Bush of "fear mongering" when it comes to terrorism, but buy into the Globull Warming/Cooling fearmongering of the likes of Al Gore. (He who questioned Oliver North and didn't believe that Osama bin Laden was a threat.)
I keep stating my position and using facts, Jim. You now refuse to debate me, although you have nothing to back up your position with other than the drek above. I can see why you won't engage in a debate, after all, you can't actually answer anything I say, can you? So, keep walking the "high road" and refuse to accept the fact that this war is for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Maybe it doesn't bother you that losing it (cutting and running) will take away everything that should matter to you. But is DOES bother me. And I won't be silent. Your arguments, such as they are, are typically liberal. All soft and squishy and idealistic. That won't save us, Jim. It'll be the death of us all. My family and their future matters to me. Does yours matter to you at all? Or just the theoretical nonsense you spout?
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity