American Politics, Terrorism and Islam
Ramabriga
Mon, 2008-06-23 01:09
By Habib Siddiqui
Part 8: How Can Terrorism be Defeated?
As is well-known among experts, terrorism cannot be fought without understanding its underlying
causes (and not symptoms). Unless the sources of the motivation for terrorism are diluted,
attempts to thwart and eliminate it will see little success. Hatred will breed fresh
recruitment. In his must-read book – The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership – Dr.
Brzezinski argues that to make certain that their ranks are not replenished, however, a careful
political strategy is needed in order to weaken the complex political and cultural forces that
give rise to terrorism. Bottom line: what creates them has to be politically undercut.
Thus, if we are serious about not seeing a repeat of events like the 9/11, we ought to
understand and mitigate the contributing factors. As has been concluded by most experts,
including President Jimmy Carter and Dr. Brzezinski, there is no escape from the historic
reality that American involvement in the Middle East is clearly the main reason why terrorism
has been directed at America – just as, e.g., English involvement in Ireland precipitated the
IRA's frequent targeting of London. The British have recognized that basic fact and have tried
to react to it on both military and political levels. In contrast, America has shown an
incredible reluctance to confront the political dimensions of terrorism and to identify
terrorism with its political context.
The state of affairs simply worsened during G.W. Bush's Administration. Soon after coming to
power in 2001, President Bush not only ignored the Palestinian grievances but worse still,
condoned and rewarded Israeli brutality against the Palestinian people. If American policy in
the Middle East were even-handed and just, rather than being lopsided in favor of Israel, 9/11
may never have happened.
American relationship with the world of Islam is complicated by strong emotions and a great
deal of reciprocal prejudices. It started deteriorating since at least the time of Henry
Kissinger when he served as America's top diplomat. He tilted the U.S. foreign policy very
heavily in favor of the Jewish state. This, in spite of Israel's bombing of the USS Liberty in
1967. The Iranian hostage crisis after the fall of the Shah was definitely a low point in
Muslim-American relationship.
During Reagan Administration the relationship worsened further with Israeli invasion of Lebanon
in 1982. There is little doubt among terrorist experts that when on April 18, 1983 a delivery
van blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 46 people (including 16 Americans) the chief
motivation was the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut
that was orchestrated by Sharon. As the Lebanese Civil War escalated, American and French
forces sided with the Lebanese Christian forces, thus making a travesty of the UN peace
mission. On September 13, 1983, Reagan called for heavy bombing and shelling of Muslim
positions to help the Christian forces. That provided the stimulus for the reprisal attack on
Oct. 23, 1983 when truck bombs killed American marines and French soldiers.
When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, she claimed that the invasion was justified in retaliation
for PLO attacks on Israelis. But as Tom Friedman, the Jewish correspondent for the New York
Times and an unabashed apologist for the Israeli government, noted in his book From Beirut to
Jerusalem, the number of Israeli casualties the PLO guerillas in Lebanon actually inflicted
were minuscule - one death in the 12 months before the invasion. (As later events testify
Israeli terrorism has only been emboldened by a docile and compliant US Congress and White
House. Israel's casualties from rockets fired by the Hizballah and Hamas in recent years were
so little that they could not have justified the latest invasion of Lebanon and Gaza,
respectively. And yet, the Bush Administration sided with Israel for slaughter of Muslims. Such
a carte blanche to rogue Jewish state is dangerous and immoral.)
The events of 1983 clearly demonstrate how American support of Israeli terrorism leads to
terrible consequences for the United States. But even after 9/11, it seems America does not get
it right. Arrogant and confident about her hyper power status, American leaders continue to
ignore lessons of history, overlook what is so obvious and follow failed path like obsessed fools.
Information sharing between intelligence groups is important to stop some terrorist activities.
However, in an increasingly cynical world ruled by mostly immoral political leaders with
ignoble agendas that are at odds with goodwill for humanity such does not happen all the time.
The Los Angeles Times, in discussing a revealing book by a former agent of the Israeli Mossad,
showed that the Mossad had foreknowledge of the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in
1983, but treacherously did not warn America. That wasn't the only time that Israel committed
treachery against the USA. There are credible reports of Mossad's foreknowledge of the 9/11
attack, which were not shared with the FBI. Such a willful avoidance to share sensitive
information can only be explained in Israel's wicked intent to swing American public opinion
towards an all-out war that is scripted by Jewish neocons to reshape the geopolitical map of
the Middle East, and making the region impotent against Israeli aggression. Thus, when on
September 12, 2001 the former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the
9/11 attacks meant for relations between the US and Israel, he replied, “It’s very good.” In a
recent speech (April 16, 2008), quoted in the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv, he repeated: "We are
benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the
American struggle in Iraq," He reportedly added that these events "swung American public
opinion in our favor." [Interestingly, notice his choice of the word "struggle", meaning Jihad
in Arabic!]
Soon after 9/11 there was genuine empathy for America in most Muslim countries, including Iran.
However, within six months, the nearly unanimous support for America gave way to increasing
skepticism, when Bush's War on Terror was increasingly viewed as a neo-Crusade against the
world of Islam. The US inclination, in the spring of 2002, to embrace even the more extreme and
brutal forms of Israeli suppression of Palestinians further worsened the matter. In recent
years, Bush's never-ending war on terrorism has morphed into a campaign to vanquish all
potential enemies of her hegemony -- from Iran to Somalia via Syria.
In his tunnel-vision approach to our world, i.e., seeing the world in terms of "us vs. them,"
President Bush has forgotten that it is his evil, immoral and bad policy in the Middle East
that has spawn new terrorists faster than his forces can kill old ones. He also forgets that
violence against civilians, esp. dehumanization of enemy, contributes to replenishment amongst
the victims' friends and families. Simply exterminating them all will not solve the problem.
Bush Administration also forgot that extreme torture tactics only help to recruit for
terrorism. Not surprisingly, there are more 'terrorists' today in Afghanistan and Iraq than
ever before! And in all likelihood, terrorism will not end with Osama's capture or death
either, as it has not ended in Iraq with Zarqawi's assassination.
America is also heedless about the cost of terrorism. This attitude is simply insane and
untenable, especially, in the light of a recently published CRS Report for Congress (April 11,
2008) on the cost of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that shows that a total of $700 billion was
approved as of December 2007 by the Congress since the 9/11 attacks. In February 2008, the
Congressional Budget Office projected that the funding could reach from 1.1 to 1.7 trillion USD
for fiscal years 2001-2018. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already killed some 5000
occupation soldiers (almost twice the number killed in the WTC attack of 9/11), let alone
killing more than a million Muslim civilians. Those wars were partly motivated by oil. And what
did war deliver other than Americans having have to pay now three times in gas stations, with
ripple effects felt everywhere?
Bush Administration's unwillingness to recognize a historical connection between the rise of
anti-American terrorism and America's hegemonic involvement in the Middle East, plus immoral
and unquestioning support of the rogue, racist state - Israel, is a dangerous and delusional
form of denial and makes the formulation of an effective strategic response to terrorism that
much difficult.
To win war against Middle Eastern terrorists, as Dr. Brzezinski has suggested in his book "The
Choice" America must promote a political process that confronts the conditions that lead to the
terrorists' emergence. This is precisely what the British has been doing in Ulster and the
Spaniards in Basque country, and ought to be followed by every government that wants to tackle
the problem earnestly. It is that simple.
As any genuine expert would testify, addressing these political conditions is not a concession
to terrorists but an important component of a strategy to eliminate and isolate the terrorist
underworld. This formula for rooting out terrorism in the Arab world can start with finding a
just and equitable solution to the Palestinian problem that allows repatriation of the uprooted
people to their ancestral homes.
However, with an overarching influence of the Israel Lobby, no American politician is bold
enough to formulate a Middle-East policy that is meaningful to combat terrorism. As a matter of
fact when it comes to the Middle East, it is virtually all the same with either major political
party. Not surprisingly, therefore, that we got a good dose of genuflection from presumptive
presidential candidates in the 2008 AIPAC conference. Both McCain and Obama sounded more
Likudnik than real Likud members of the Knesset. Obama's statement there that "Jerusalem will
remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided" even exceeds what most current
Israeli leaders would say and was a reminiscent of the days of Menachem Begin's Likud. He, like
most American politicians, forgets that no Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with
Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest
places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred
to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
Even an ingenuous President Carter is ostracized for his frank assessment of the apartheid like
condition prevailing in Israel for the Palestinian people. He is treated like a political leper
in the USA. Such an attitude to silence one of the most courageous American souls paints a very
sad picture about American politics and needs to be corrected for greater good of humanity.
In the wake of 9/11, America needs to examine, carefully and calmly its complex relationship
with the world of Islam. That is the pre-requisite to any effective long-term American
engagement in pacifying the twin dangers of terrorism and proliferation of weapons. She cannot
allow militant supporters of Israel within the State Department to underwrite American foreign
policy for the Middle East. She cannot deny Iran her rights to exploring nuclear energy while
shuts her eyes to latter's possession of 150 nuclear bombs, let alone arming Israel tooth and
nail. That behavior is grossly hypocritical and irresponsible. (An equitable approach would be
to dismantle Israel's nuclear arsenal and enforce a nuclear-free zone for the entire Middle
East.) She cannot allow Israel to use American weapons to kill unarmed civilians. She must also
take into consideration rising anti-American political and religious hostility produced by
American unilateralism. She simply can't afford Pharaohnic arrogance and Hamanic despotism.
Terrorism can be eliminated only through a sensitive recognition of motives and passion that
drive it. In their quest - in which terrorism in fact is viewed (not necessarily correctly) as
a ruthless tool of the weak against the powerful – the weak have one great psychological
advantage: they have little to lose and, they believe, everything to gain. The power of
weakness allows, according to Dr. Brzezinski, four novel realities of modern life. The first is
that access to the means of inflicting large-scale lethality is no longer restricted to
organized and powerful states. Second, worldwide mobility and worldwide communication both
facilitate coordination and planning of underground cells.
Third, democratic permeability facilitates penetration of terrorism, which is difficult to
detect, something that is slightly less possible, but not altogether impossible, in
authoritarian regimes. Fourth, the systemic interdependence of a modern society tends to set
off chain reactions. If even a single key element of the system is disrupted, it prompts
escalating social disruption and wildfire panic.
According to Dr. Brzezinski, the weak becomes strong by oversimplifying the focus of their
hatred, whereas the strong become weak by doing the same. Both gain supports by demonizing what
they despise. Unlike the weak, the powerful cannot afford the luxury of oversimplification.
They become weak by oversimplifying their fears. Because their interests are broad and their
stakes interdependent, the powerful must not simply demonize the challenge posed by the weak or
reduce it to a one-dimensional scale. To do so is to risk focusing only on the symptom, while
ignoring more complex and historically rooted impulses. Power and force alone are not
sufficient to preserve American hegemony. It needs cooperation and not coercion at the global
level.
In September 2004, the Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero told something that
is rarely spoken by a western leader in the United Nations about how to fight against
terrorism: “It is legality, democracy and political means and ways that make us stronger and
(terrorists) weaker…We can and must rationally analyze how (terrorism) emerges, how it grows,
so as to be able to fight it rationally.”
He is right. Only such a multilayered approach, underpinned by a calm determination to resist
the impact of terrorist attacks over a long period of time, will allow democratic politics,
principles – and citizens – to prevail. Is America willing to heed to that advice? Or will she
let herself drown in the bloody swamp of terrorism, some even self-instigated, because of her
colossal arrogance?
Dr. Siddiqui writes from Pennsylvania.. His latest book – Wisdom of Mankind - is now available
in Bangladesh.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **