original essay
Click Here to open or download the original essay in pdf form.
Our Current Policies Increase Terrorism
An Urgent Call for a New World Vision
Since our invasion of Iraq, acts of terrorism around the
world have increased by over 100%, including in areas beyond
Iraq such as Chechnya, Palestine and Jakarta. This is
because of a profound misunderstanding on our part of the
causes of terrorism, resulting not only in our continued
pursuit of the very actions that spawn terrorism, but also
in the neglect of actions and policies that could truly and
successfully lead to its demise.
We have asked our soldiers to represent us in Iraq, and they
have responded magnificently, selflessly and courageously —
as American soldiers always will. It is for them that we
must be so certain we are truly right before we enter a war.
The Rise of Terrorism … Again
Terrorists are not a new or mysterious phenomenon in
history. They have been present throughout the more than
6,000 years of recorded history and can be readily studied.
The actions that have been taken to counter terrorism, both
successful and unsuccessful, can be examined and understood.
The terrorists in today’s Middle East are not unique, nor
are their motives and methods opaque. They are much the same
as terrorists in all parts of the world and in all periods
of history — whether the Spanish under Napoleon, the IRA
under England, the Algerians under the French, the Scythians
under Darius I of Persia, the Boers under England, the
Vietcong under the French and the United States, or the
Shining Path under Peru.
Why does terrorism occur? The seeds of today’s terrorism are
not found in the Muslim religion, but rather in the extreme
poverty of most citizens of Middle Eastern countries, a
poverty that has been among the most heartbreaking and
ruinous in the world. The income of these peoples has
dropped tragically in the past ten years, both in absolute
terms and by almost half in relative terms as compared to
the rest of the world. In this state of extreme poverty, any
nation or region would be fertile ground for terrorism, just
as our ghettos are fertile ground for gang warfare.
In the case of al Qaeda and related groups, terrorism is
also rooted in the inevitable reaction to massive societal
change.1 Rapid modernization is one such change, disrupting
tradition, social order, family structure, sources and
predictability of income, and other foundational aspects of
life. It often leaves people, especially the poor, reaching
out to retrieve this lost order through fundamentalism — a
reaction which, in the broad sweep of history, has sometimes
been seen to erupt in hate and violence. In this respect,
terrorism is a desperate attempt to defend a rapidly
crumbling order, and thus restore the shredding fabric of
societies, families, communities and lives.
Middle Easterners today are faced with both oppressive
poverty and rapid modernization — dual extremes virtually
unprecedented in history and both proven factors in the rise
of terrorism.2 Terrorism (or guerilla warfare, or whatever
other label may apply) is always conducted by a group that
feels oppressed and has significantly fewer resources than
its perceived oppressor. Given that relative paucity of
resources, terrorism is not a last resort — it is their only
resort.
In responding to this fundamentalist terrorism, we should
remember the lessons of more than 6000 years of history:
Terrorism “is and always has been the very essence of how
the weak make war against the strong.” 3 To overcome
inferiority and resources in numbers, terrorists employ
secrecy, deception and fear as their ultimate tools. They
move when least expected, and invariably in a way that will
maximize impact. By luring their adversaries into endless,
futile pursuit, terrorists erode more than their enemy’s
strength; they successfully chip away at psyche and morale.
Terrorists have little if anything to lose, therefore their
inferiority in numbers and resources is easily overcome by
their desperation — they have nothing but time and nowhere
else to go. “An astounding number of other world powers,
large and small, have been humbled by guerilla war in this
past century alone.”3 Do we remember that in Vietnam over a
million Vietnamese died as compared to 50,000 Americans …
and yet we lost? Simply stated and with ideology aside, they
had already lost almost everything and had very little else
to lose. It was their home, and we were halfway around the
world from ours.
So if you want to stop terrorism, do you attack the
terrorists or do you try to understand their issues? Whether
their cause is right or not, the important part is that
terrorists believe passionately that they are right.
Terrorists are not inherently malevolent. They are filled
with passion and a sense of being aggrieved — as true of al
Qaeda as the Palestinians under Israel, the Algerians under
the French, the IRA under England and the Spanish under
Napoleon.
Al Qaeda has expressed clearly its immediate concerns, which
are both well-known and in an extreme form reflect the
broader, long-held concerns of the Muslim community. They
view U.S. foreign policy and aid to be heavily biased in
favor of Israel and a significant threat to Islam. And they
believe it is an abomination that the U.S. Military has had
a presence on sacred Islamic soil in Saudi Arabia as part of
the First Gulf War and continuing to the present. We may not
agree with these widely held objections, but we should not
overlook them in a misconceived search for different, hidden
or more sinister motives.
History shows decisively that, over the long haul, attacking
terrorism increases terrorism. And indeed, that is what is
happening right now across the world. As long as they feel
aggrieved or attacked, there is nobility and importance in
their cause, and their membership rolls increase. When they
are no longer aggrieved or attacked, membership declines.
Given oppressive poverty and rapid modernization and its
fearful, fundamentalist response in the continuing rise of
terrorism — which, in turn, historically surmounts
traditional military reactions — how then should we respond?
A Thoughtful Response: What We Should Do
First, we should pursue terrorists aggressively. Terrorism
as an international movement relies on, in part, its leaders
and the weapons with which to conduct their activities. By
identifying and isolating these individuals and interrupting
their access to the tools of disseminating their fear and
anger, we have an opportunity to replace their influence
with new seeds of prosperity and peace. Going into Iraq
diluted our efforts in this regard. We should both continue
to intelligently pursue true terrorists and increase our
efforts to monitor and control the development of nuclear
weapons — perhaps our world’s greatest long-term threat. One
of the great tragedies of our action in Iraq is that it has
damaged the credibility and effectiveness that we can bring
to these infinitely more important tasks. In pursuing
terrorists, however, we should be realistic enough to know
that a terrorist leader killed or captured is often quickly
replaced from within and often attains a martyr’s status as
a result.
Second, we should make meaningful progress solving the
ongoing, intractable problems in key areas that directly
affect the Islamic world, including Palestine, Chechnya and
Kashmir. These are among the most difficult of all possible
international problems, but making meaningful progress
toward balanced resolutions is imperative and fundamental to
the issue of reducing global terrorism. Incredibly, this has
been lost in the shuffle of international policies and
priorities for the U.S.
Third, we should build up trade with enlightened Muslim
countries. Trade is the mechanism for building up
prosperity. If abject poverty is a major part of the issue,
then creating broad prosperity is a key part of the
solution. War increases poverty. In contrast, trade has
consistently proven to be the surest route to increased
prosperity for those peoples on both sides of the trading. A
citizen of any nation whose livelihood is, in part,
dependent on trade (with the U.S. and with others) will be
more inclined toward international peace and cooperation.
Terrorism will decrease as wealth increases and is more
widely distributed. Our objective should be the wider
dispersion of property and capital within these countries —
beyond the power elite. We should encourage movement toward
governments where power is more widely distributed and thus
more representative, and we should make our support
conditional where that will positively influence the conduct
of repressive regimes. With this strategy, we can track
progress and measure success, directly and quantitatively,
by the amount and increase in trade with these countries,
the per capita GNP of these countries and the distribution
of wealth in these countries. And we can publish and share
the success of our efforts measured not by body counts, but
by the bounteous fruit of honest labor and trade.
Fourth, we should dramatically lower our profile in Iraq.
The benefit of a reduced presence is slowly beginning to be
acknowledged, even within the military. General Peter J.
Shoomaker has said, “Sometimes the best way is to be less
present.” 4 And former Special Forces officer Keith W. Mines
said, “The presence of foreign security forces is provoking
the very instability that must diminish in order for the
process to work.”4 If, as a nation, we choose to stay and
fight the growing insurgency, there is little to be gained
and much to be lost. The goal has already become not
democracy but stability — by almost any means, at a cost of
over $100 billion per year and at an accelerating cost in
lives on both sides. And there is an even more costly
political dilemma: Since the surest path toward short-term
stability is the installation of another oppressive regime
(whether under Allawi or someone else), staying in Iraq will
again put the U.S. in the unacceptable position of claiming
victory by the creation of oppression.
A Thoughtful Response: What We Should NOT Do
We should be careful not to use the rhetoric of
self-righteousness, haughtiness or power. Our response to
the stunning terrorist blow we received should have been
equal parts force against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and
outreach to the peoples of the Middle East and to the many
nations whose hearts ached with ours. Instead, our response
was comprised almost entirely of force and arrogance,
accompanied by the rhetoric and symbolism of
self-righteousness and vengeance. Even in a justified
pursuit, to use words like “dead or alive” or “bring ‘em on”
stands in contrast to the words of our forefathers, who
instead inspired a nation with messages of love,
forgiveness, humility and healing. We recall Lincoln in his
Second Inaugural Address, “with malice toward none, with
charity for all” … or Washington in his farewell address to
Congress, “Observe good faith and justice toward all
nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.” Are these
not still the values by which we wish to be judged and
represented in the world? Friendship, respect and love are
far more powerful than force and vengeance will ever be.
We should not preemptively attack. We were right to invade
Afghanistan. Al Qaeda had viciously attacked us on 9/11, and
a concentration of their financial support and training
bases were in Afghanistan. We had asked the Taliban leaders
of Afghanistan for assistance in pursuing al Qaeda, which
they rebuffed. We were right to invade Afghanistan, but we
have been wrong in abandoning Afghanistan and ceding the
country back to the Taliban and the warlords. Lawlessness
has returned, the Taliban are reestablished and Afghanistan
is again the number one producer of opium in the world. It
is the most prominent economic resource they know, and we
have not been there to provide alternatives.
Iraq, on the other hand, never attacked us. In fact, we have
now learned that our sanctions against Iraq had done their
work in essentially eliminating Iraq’s capacity for weapons
of mass destruction. By attacking Iraq, we increased the
perception of our antagonism toward Muslim nations, and we
increased poverty — both direct and powerful factors in
inciting the terrorist actions we seek to end. And we damage
our case for the morality of our cause. Again, we veer from
our founding principles: Lincoln wrote “If, today, (anyone)
should choose to say he thinks it’s necessary to invade
Canada to prevent the British from invading us … you may say
to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us.’
But he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, (even) if you
don’t.’” Generals Lee and Grant both struggled with their
conscience regarding the U.S. invasion of Mexico in 1847,
which they both fought in but thought to be an egregious war
and a stain on the honor of the U.S. 5 The only war that a
democratic society can ultimately conduct is a true war of
self-defense, not a preemptive war under the guise of
self-defense. 6
Thoughtful Objections … and Reasoned Answers
Thoughtful friends have raised two important objections to
our thesis. One of these is that not attacking the
insurgents is tantamount to appeasing thugs, and appeasement
is a mistake. We will leave alone for the moment the
question of whether Allawi is the right man and someone else
is not. Our foreign policy history is filled with examples
of the U.S. supporting the wrong person — we have supported
Hussein, Challabi, Marcos, Ky, and the list goes on.
Nevertheless, the argument is that, if we leave, we will be
repeating the famous mistake of Neville Chamberlain when he
acquiesced to Hitler in the interest of short-term peace. We
would argue that this is not a relevant comparison.
Germany’s economic and military strength were at relative
parity with the economies and military strength of England
or France. In stark contrast, the U.S. economy dwarfs that
of Iraq, being more than 100 times larger; our advantage in
military size and technology is such that we would win the
military aspect of any war in which we were participants,
including Iraq, if only we were willing to fight
unthrottled. Never before in history has the military of one
country dominated in such an overwhelming way — not Rome in
the days of the Caesars, not Britain at the height of the
empire — no one. Our strength and dominance mean we can
achieve our goals through economic means and other types of
influence, as we so successfully did in eliminating weapons
of mass destruction from Iraq. Therefore, “appeasement” is
not a risk. Neglecting to track down true terrorists is a
risk. Neglecting to track down nuclear weapons is a risk.
Reducing our profile in an Iraqi civil war is almost
certainly not.
The second objection our friends have raised is with our
thesis that poverty and hyperchange are the catalysts of
terrorism, and that exercising our formidable military
strength is not the best or only solution to these problems.
As example, they cite liberal mayors in the 1960s and 1970s
explaining rising crime as a byproduct of poverty, broken
schools and urban despair, while subsequent mayors in more
recent decades empowered the police to aggressively enforce
the law, during which time there was indeed a decrease in
violent crime. To this we answer that when you examine crime
statistics nationwide (e.g., murders per 1,000 population,
etc.) from the 1960s to the present, the trends from state
to state and region to region have been similar, regardless
of whether their respective administrations were
conservative or liberal. While police efforts can influence
trends at the margin, some other force beyond police force —
careful analysis suggests some demographic or societal
force7 — was responsible. In very much the same sense,
military action in the Middle East cannot solve any of the
root causes of the problems there. Ultimately, force does
not subdue, it enrages. It reinforces and exacerbates the
sense of hopelessness among those that feel helpless,
attacked and aggrieved.
Changing the Course of History … by Reclaiming the Course of History
Because we have not looked to history and human nature, we
have misdiagnosed the causes of the world’s current epidemic
of terrorism. Rather, we have done the very things that
exacerbate the causes and thus increase world terrorism. We
need to acknowledge this … and change our course. We need to
do those things that truly will reduce terrorism. And
equally important, we need to reexamine who we are as a
nation.
In the wake of 9/11, it was appropriate to be concerned and
to build defenses and protection that we had not previously
contemplated. But it is not appropriate that this
defensiveness should become paranoia and result in a decline
in the treasured civil liberties that define our nation. We
should encourage prudence but not fear — and we should
remember that fear-mongering is the province of cowards. As
Ben Franklin said, those who would “give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety.” We should remember that we are built on
a foundation of uncensored freedom, and our vision of
ourselves as a beacon on a hill implies love and respect and
friendship more than it implies power.
Reversing our approach is not merely about redeeming our
heritage; it will have an enormous salutary effect on
tangible matters such as interest rates and oil prices. The
billions spent fighting in Iraq can be spent on true
anti-terrorist actions … or deficit reduction … or cancer
research. (We marked the anniversary of 1,000 dead in Iraq,
while tens of thousands fall to cancer each year.) We can
use this money to support our educational system, to
stimulate employment at home or to fight with renewed
resources those other wars that we have not yet shown an
ability to win — such as the war on our own domestic
poverty, or the war on drugs.
We have erred in attacking Iraq. The replacement regime that
we instate will almost certainly be an oppressive regime.
There has been an unacceptable loss in lives and an
incalculable effect that has engendered hatred and increased
terrorism around the world. That is not our America. Our
America is a bold and vigorous country, whose achievements
continue to surpass those of any nation before us, and that
at its heart values love, friendship, respect and decency
for the entire world. Our true history is one of recognizing
our mistakes and emerging stronger, bolder and yet with an
extra measure of humility and wisdom.
No matter which candidate earns our nation’s vote this
November, we would entreat both to hear our call for a new
vision and new policies to address the recurring rise of
terrorism. Please share this article and help open the
discussion to these ideas. Make copies of this page or visit
our website at www.americanrespect.com to forward it
electronically to your family, friends, colleagues and
contacts. Encourage them to spread the word as well. There’s
no charge for downloading this article, and we are neither a
PAC nor an organization asking for contributions to advance
a cause or candidate. And please send your reactions and
responses to us at comments@americanrespect.com.
Let us all take this critical time in history to reexamine
where we are … and who we are … and what we really need to
do.
Grasp with us again the American mantle of love, respect,
friendship and freedom that has long served as a beacon to
the world.
Footnotes
Careful historians, including Barbara Tuchman, James Burke
and Karen Armstrong, have argued that factors as disparate
as high crime rates and fundamentalist revivals are evidence
of, and a reaction to, hyperchange within a given historical
period or society.
- Karen Armstrong’s Battle for God is a powerful exegesis of this theme as it
relates to the Middle East.
- Historian Jay Winik, in his book April 1865.
- Ibid
- Washington Post.
- Personal Memoirs: Ulysses S. Grant (written with the help of
Mark Twain, as Grant was dying).
- Read more in Barbara Tuchman’s thesis, Practicing History &Selected Essays.
- The best analyses that we have seen show a close correlation
between the decrease in violent crime to the decline in the
population of older teenage and young adult males as a
percent of the total U.S. population.
back to top^
part two
Click here to open or download the essay in PDF form.
American Respect Part II: From Attitudes to Actions --
Addresing the “how to” of a more appropriate and effective response to global terrorism
Since we first published our essay, “Our
Current Policies Increase Terrorism,” in the New York
Times on 9/26/04(see www.americanrespect.com),
the election has come and gone, and we continue to bring the war to cities and
villages within Iraq. Our simple thesis – that waging war in Iraq is increasing terrorism – remains a
minority view. However, we maintain that view is what our nation must come to understand, and we
would note that:
- Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead – men, women and children
- Over 1200 Americans are dead and over 25,000 are wounded.
- Large numbers of European Muslims are emigrating to Iraq to join what is increasingly perceived as the ”holy” wars
against the U.S. – as would be predicted by our thesis.
- Oil prices are much higher than before the war; interest rates continue to rise; The
dollar is declining rapidly in value versus other key world currencies; the Producers
Price Index has reached a 14-year high; and gold is at a 16-year high -- in large
measure due to the war and the $100 billion per year being spent on it.
- We have “taken” Fallujah and certain other areas, but it is of minimal consequence
because the forces we are fighting are not tied to geography (a lesson we should
have learned in Vietnam). Furthermore, the physical destruction we are wreaking will
make Iraq’s economic recovery much more difficult.
- Neither holding the Iraqi elections nor postponing them will change the adverse
consequences of our presence and our policies.
- We are conducting these actions with a shortage of
trained and willing troops to adequately address current
goals in Iraq, a tragic disservice to the young men and
women already nobly serving our country.
Furthermore, the word “terrorist” is
increasingly being used as a catch-all phrase for evil, the
way “communist” became a catch-all phrase for evil in prior
decades. Simply
call someone a “terrorist” or “terrorist sympathizer”, and
you’ve fully made your case—no facts or intellectual rigor
required. We are
reminded of politicians in the 50’s and 60’s that enhanced
their careers by invoking a communist threat beyond any
communist reality, when we were all ultimately to learn that
the communist threat never extended beyond the certain
rulers and the people that were their apparatus—and the vast
majority of people in the affected regions were ordinary
people with love and hope and aspirations like ourselves. We must be careful not to misapply this term, or
apply it more broadly than is justified or true. Do we remember the fear and hatred with which Soviet
Olympic athletes were regarded?
Since our first essay, we have been
asked by many people to elaborate and expand on HOW we can
reduce terrorism. Here is our attempt to do that and also to add
modestly to the explanation of WHY as well:
(For those who continue to wonder about
the composition and disposition of the American Respect
group, please note that we are primarily Caucasian,
Christian, supportive of Israel, suburban-bred, ordinary
Americans. But our group is deeply concerned by the harm
currently being brought by reactionaries and extremists on
both sides of the divide. And even more importantly, our group is delighted by
the wonders of the world we live in, and the gifts that
diverse cultures bring us all in art, literature, music,
romance, cuisine, science, religion, products and so many
other areas.)
WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF TERRORISM
One reason a so-called “war on terror”
cannot be successful using traditional military strategies
is because there is no single “nation-state” from which our
opponents arise.
There is no capital city to bomb, no single host country to
invade. Find them in one place, and they will move; depose
one leader and another will rise from their ranks. Whether or not deposing Saddam Hussein was a noble
mission, Iraq had little or nothing to do with the 9/11
terrorist attacks in the U.S. … and while we have argued
that this war increases terrorism, it is equally true that
no aspect of this war will reduce terrorism, since
terrorists are tied by their common enemy, and by ideology,
tactics and cyberspace -- not by a single nation-state.
As we have discussed, terrorism is the
only resort that the very material poor or weak have to
fight the perceived oppression of the militarily superior.
Their grievances are their perception of
disproportionate support of Israel by the west, and their
exclusion from participation and self-expression in the
societies on the boundaries of the Islamic crescent – from
Bosnia Herzegovina to Chechnya to Kashmir and India to
Israel.
These two areas of grievances are both
exacerbated and fuelled by rapid population growth, rapid
modernization and extreme poverty. (Many have pointed out that Osama bin Laden and other
terrorist leaders are wealthy; but their following would not
be a fraction as large as it is if not for their ability to
recruit from among the destitute and despairing – just as a
young Adolph Hitler would not have been able to create a
national movement if not for the hyperinflation, depression
and sharp blows to national esteem that dominated the German
experience in the 1920’s and 30’s).
Terrorists, from their position of
weakness, cannot hope, and do not even strive, to govern,
but instead aim to destabilize governments. From their perceived positions of righteousness,
their righteous ends justify any means, and they get what
resources they can from drug cartels and other criminal
elements. And
make no mistake, terrorism has existed for millennia as a
function of non-Islamic causes and religions, and exists
throughout the world today as a function of non-Islamic
causes and religions, and thus Islam cannot of itself, be
the cause or take the blame for terrorism.
WE MUST DEPOLARIZE HOT SPOTS
In assessing how to genuinely reduce
terrorism, we must acknowledge that the terrible and
unresolved situations in Kashmir, Chechnya, Israel and
elsewhere are causal factors in the rise of terrorism. No actions can make much difference until there is a
marked reduction in the tension in these areas. These
continuing conflicts are due in part to the perception of
U.S. favoritism toward Israel at the expense of Muslim
interests.
Certainly we believe strongly in
Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself, and would not
advocate any diminution in our support of Israel. Instead, we suggest an increase in support and
munificence toward predominantly Muslim nations, and the use
of our friendship, intelligence and influence to bring about
a marked decrease in the conflict and tensions in Israel, in
Kashmir and in Chechnya. We don’t pretend to have all the answers, but we
believe that there are a range of acceptable solutions and
that the U.S. is currently not using impartial influence
with nearly the energy, priority and effectiveness that it
could. A recent
statement by Pervez Musharraf is representative: “All
(Muslim) terrorist and militant activity in the world today
has been initiated by the Palestinian problem.Who do you think is carrying out the suicide attacks?
This is because of the sense of hopelessness, alienation and
powerlessness.”
WE MUST OPEN GLOBAL TRADE
We must also step back from Iraq,
Afghanistan and the Israeli/Palestinian question to view the
full geographic scope of the issue. Predominantly Islamic nations range from such Saharan
countries as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Sudan; to
such quasi-European countries as Turkey and
Bosnia-Herzegovina; to Middle Eastern countries such as
Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen and Oman; and to such Asian
regions and countries as Chechnya, Pakistan and Indonesia
(which has the largest Muslim population of any country),
and many more beyond these. The solution to the level of
terrorism in each of the countries is increased stability
--as measured by a more limited and representative
government; and increased prosperity
-- as measured by the effective
distribution of wealth and the resulting increased size of
the middle class. Importantly, increased stability and prosperity in
any one of these countries benefits the entire equation.
We believe that a comprehensive, active
program of opening and encouraging trade, tourism, cultural
exchange efforts and the like between ourselves and any or
all of these countries will be directly and indirectly
beneficial in reducing terrorism. As we have said, history emphatically demonstrates
that specialization and trade are the agents of prosperity.
When an American or Brit buys a Persian rug, Turkish spices
or Pakistani goods, and when a citizen of Qatar buys
U.S.-made laundry detergent or agricultural equipment, our
mutual prosperity and stability increases. And every person
in these countries, who sells something to an American or
European, or sees one of their neighbors benefit from doing
the same, is less likely to become a terrorist or support
terrorism. If citizens of Iraq can see increases in
stability and prosperity in Turkey or Morocco or Qatar or
Kashmir, hope increases. And while financial aid can often be important, trade
is more powerful and sustainable than aid. Trade costs little or nothing and creates economic
benefit to both sides involved in the trading.
As an example, there has been a
tremendous desire on the part of Turkey to gain entry into
the European Union. This fits directly into our thesis. It would bring increased prosperity and
interdependence between nations with different religious
heritages. And
yet Turkey is having great difficulty in gaining this entry. Without commenting on or debating the specific issues
associated with their potential entrance, having Turkey in
the EU would have a long-term beneficial effect in reducing
terrorism. And
we would argue that any assistance the U.S. can provide in
bringing these two sides together would be of more value
than even the most optimistic assessment of the benefit of
the war in Iraq.
Thoughtful friends have applauded this
view of trading, but have simultaneously expressed doubt
that open trade could make much difference because 1) it is
hard to devise initiatives of sufficient scope and 2) it
tends to enrich the power elite, thus creating added
frustration among ordinary citizens as their participation
and self-expression is delayed. We recognize that the possibility for such undesired
outcome is great, and ought to be strongly guarded against. However, we also remember that trading was the
indispensable predicate to every burst of prosperity in
history, from the Phoenicians to the Italian Renaissance and
to the establishment of the new world in the Americas,
though we fully acknowledge that beneficial effect can take
decades.
Historically, broadening the class of the economically
successful has always been gradual, whether from the king to
the lords and barons or from the Astors, Carnegies and
Morgans to a broader group beyond them.
WE MUST BUILD STRONGER INTERNATIONAL
ALLIANCES
A stronger international coalition is
not just about trade, nor just about good will and
diplomacy, nor even simply about building joint forces of
“peacekeeping” troops to monitor potential trouble spots.
Rather, a unified international community has greater
potential to stifle such trouble spots before they erupt,
particularly if that collation of allies includes
representation from nations in Asia and the Arab world.
Another important result of creating
stronger relationships with a broader group of allies would
be its resulting impact on our ability to enforce
international laws that are already in place and to
eliminate the weapons of terrorism. Working together with our allies, we can dig into the
connections of these international criminals, drug lords,
terrorists and arms dealers to shut down their financial
resources. We
can ask ally governments to watch their banks for potential
money-laundering activities (perhaps at the risk of their
losing access to U.S. trade and/or aid). We can combine our respective resources and
technologies to trace terrorist movements, seize bank
accounts and yes, when necessary, carry out targeted
military strikes, preferably without committing ground
troops, as was successfully avoided in Kosovo.
In contrast to these ideas and
suggestions, note that even the minimal efforts announced
and budgeted by the current administration for "winning the
hearts and minds" of people in the Middle East and Muslim
countries have gone neglected. There are ample loud cries and complaints from within
the State Department and the US Military regarding the
neglect of these initiatives.
WE MUST ENGAGE DIRECTLY AND RESPECTFULLY WITH THE
ISLAMIC WORLD
Islam is not our enemy. We currently
enjoy positive diplomatic relations with Jordan and Egypt
and Morocco and other predominantly Islamic nations, even
though they are not democracies in the American sense of the
word. Gaining their perspectives in addressing our shared
challenges can only benefit our shared objectives of peace
and prosperity. Where applicable, the U.S. can choose to
exercise its considerable capacity for economic aid to help
nurture the process by which a nation’s citizens create
their own versions of open and representative society. We’ve
proven many times over that democracy cannot be imposed at
gunpoint.
Certainly we recognize that despots and
dictators in some of these countries are a monumental
obstacle to stability and prosperity in the area, and in
many respects a causal factor in terrorism. And it is also clear that the US has inappropriately
supported many of these regimes in the interest of access to
oil. Added to
this, history has shown that countries with
disproportionately large amounts of natural resources, such
as certain oil-rich Middle East countries, have the poorest
track record in terms of overall progress in stability and
prosperity -- the theory being that the inevitable struggle
to obtain and control those national resources acts to crowd
out economic diversification and development and preclude
the distribution of power.
Nevertheless, we must also recognize
that the transition from despots and dictators (or kings) in
Western Europe to a more limited government with greater
representation took hundreds of years and was marked by
civil war and bloodshed. Some of the most prominent events in western history
marked this tumultuous process -- the Magna Carta, the
Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the American
Revolution, and many more. Distribution of power was a slow and uneven evolution
from a concentration of power only in the king, to some type
of balance between the king and powerful nobles, to the
incorporation of other powerful entities such as cities or
guilds into the balance of power, and then to a more formal
distribution of representatives, which included
incorporation of a voting mechanism to select some or most
of these representatives.
To those who would argue that the
civilizations of the Middle East and Asia are much older and
thus should have similarly evolved by now, we would respond
that many of the countries were created as recently as the
aftermath of World War I, and even those that have been
around longer have been exposed to the industrial and
information revolutions for a far briefer period that the
west.
Furthermore, we should remember that
the most central ideas in the creation of the United States
were 1) government limited by law, 2) guaranteed legal
rights to individuals (our Bill of Rights), 3) more
representative governance, and 4) the limitation of the
power of the government by separation of powers and the
resulting checks and balances. These were as much or more the objectives of the US
Constitution than the idea of one-person, one-vote
democracy, which was partially muted in our constitution by
such devices as the Electoral College. We should therefore not consider it inherently
inadequate if the governments of certain of these countries
make progress toward stability and prosperity by taking real
steps toward these four principles—without necessarily
achieving a complete democracy overnight. Simply look at the
struggles that Mexico has had on this path during the past
century.
WEALTH OPPORTUNITIES MUST BE MORE BROADLY
AVAILABLE
In addition to these changes in the
form of government, economic restructuring is required. We believe that foreign aid and welfare have proven
to be limited in their effect, and difficult to sustain. In contrast, one of the most potent ideas we have
ever come across in this quest to distribute wealth in
developing countries comes from a book by Hernando de Soto
called “The Other Path: The Economic Answer To Terrorism.”
This is a powerful and powerfully
researched analysis of how countries, including and
especially the United States, have distributed land as an
engine to wealth creation for the masses, and describes how
these same methods can be enacted in
economically-disadvantaged countries today. To understand de
Soto’s thesis, think of the distribution by fiat of Oklahoma
land in 1896 (the “sooners”) or the de-facto land
distribution to squatters on the western edge of the
original 13 colonies, or to miners in gold-rush era
California, which, though viewed disreputably during their
time (including by our all-time favorite founding father
George Washington), can be demonstrated to have been one of
the most important predicates of broad wealth distribution
in our country's history, and the historical underpinning of
today's middle class.
WE MUST REDUCE OUR PROFILE IN IRAQ
We must reiterate the importance of
reducing our profile in Iraq to reducing global terrorism. Our presence, and the death and destruction it has
brought, has increased the vitriol with which we are
perceived and provided further fuel for recruiting new
terrorists. There are a variety of useful suggestions on how
to reduce the U.S. profile in Iraq that do not necessarily
include the withdrawal of troops. Transforming our mission
to one of peacekeeping and protection through their
elections and perhaps some defined (and not too lengthy)
period afterwards, instead of our current mission of
attacking the insurgents, would be a good place to start.
Still, we recommend removal of troops,
because we believe troop removal will inevitably be
implemented at a point prior to the achievement of stability
anyway – because stability is likely not achievable with our
presence, and the patience of the American people for
continuing to have troops there will inevitably and
appropriately ebb. The only probable alternative, as we have
said, is to have the Iraqi government take a repressive
posture not dissimilar to Syria, Egypt or the Iraq of
Hussein.
Our actions in Iraq – from an
unsanctioned war based on WMD that we never found, to the
prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib – have increased the perception among many Muslims,
even those who do not endorse terrorist acts, and even among
many of our Western allies, that America is morally corrupt
and economically exploitative. While decidedly untrue, it is a perception that
indirectly makes heroes of suicide bombers and martyrs of
captured terrorist leaders. When we then “declare war” on terror and deliver a
purely military response, we elevate a criminal enterprise
to a missionary stature that only serves to attract more
recruits and donations to their cause. Recent developments
within the known terrorist community corroborate this point.
According to U.S. security analysts, counter-terrorism
experts and Middle East scholars, there is a marked shift in
focus among terrorists toward Iraq as a staging ground for
their battle. Terrorists from throughout Europe and Asia are
flocking to Iraq to support the insurgents. It’s been noted that even the Pakistani Sunni
extremist group Lashkar-e-Tayba is shifting its sights from
Kashmir to Iraq.
Disturbing too is the rise of a new Shiite militancy that
shares the apocalyptic views of Al Qaeda. We are being forced into a choice: Either decimate
the country and thousands if not hundreds of thousands, of
innocents, or remove ourselves and redirect our energy and
resources to addressing the cause and spread of terrorism,
rather than its symptomatic outbreaks.
So our four-step plan for reducing
terrorism remains as described in our original essay:
-
Intelligently pursue true
terrorists such as al Qaeda – and rebuild international
coalitions to help achieve this.
-
Energetically pursue balanced
solutions in Palestine, Kashmir, and Chechnya, with
these rebuilt international coalitions
-
Increase trade with Muslim countries and, as
part of this, influence their governments toward being
limited by law and having increasingly broadly
representative governments
-
Decrease our profile in Iraq.
WE MUST UNDERSTAND CURRENT POPULATION TRENDS
We must add a further item for
consideration to this discussion. A pronounced shift is
underway in ethnic representation across the planet, and it
is changing our world in ways most people have not yet
recognized. The
“Muslim-centric” and “Hindu-centric” populations are growing
at an annual rate of 2-3%, while the growth of
“Christian-centric” and “Buddhist centric” populations are
growing at much slower rates, if at all.
This dramatic growth of the Muslim
population worldwide is creating conflict in every
geographic area in which people of this faith co-exist with
people of other established faiths. It is leading to
Hindu-Muslim “riots” within India.span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
It is behind the perceived threat of a nuclear war
between India and Pakistan. It underlies the genocide(s) in Serbo-Croatia. Indeed, India, Yugoslavia and Israel are flash points
only because they are the frontier-towns where the Islamic
Crescent meets other faiths—namely Hinduism, Christianity,
and Judaism.
America has been drawn into this
conflict because it is perceived as supporting regimes and
forces that are preventing people of this “nascent” faith
from finding self-expression,
including the Jewish state in Israel,
and the Christians in Yugoslavia. Adding to this is the
perception that we have not facilitated a solution in
Kashmir, and we have backed many of the monarchies in the
Middle East that refuse to give democratic representation to
the Islamic masses
Military power has never been able to
reverse the shifts unleashed by such population trends.
Examples include the military actions of the proponents of
apartheid in South Africa, where the black population was
growing at 3.5% per year while the white population wasn’t
growing, or of the ancient Romans against the more
procreative Goths and Huns. In today’s Israel, the Palestinian population is
growing at 3%, and the Israeli population is not.
And while a major part of our thesis
has been that poverty is always an issue with such nascent
populations, some view the bigger problem as being their
lack of means for participation and self-expression. As just one note in this regard, we include this
anecdote from a highly successful, Indian-born American
friend of ours.
“I grew up in a Hindu-Muslim “hot-spot” … my hometown is
utterly sacred to Hindus (the local majority when I was a
kid) since it has one of only three Brahma temples in the
world, and it is second only to Mecca for Muslims. The Muslim minority was ridiculed at school because
they were circumcised, rejected by employers because of
their desire to pray during work hours, and unable to get
their voice heard or their situation corrected because they
could never get their leaders elected to influential
offices.”
It is a story as old as civilization,
and as new as our own civil rights movement in America.
Balanced representation of
majority/minority interests is a moral and practical
imperative
and ought not be a numbers game, but
when a major shift is in progress, conflicts will escalate
unless fair mediation is sought and/or until – through the
unpleasant course of many generations -- it becomes a
“non-issue” when the minority has grown to supplant the
majority.
The tactical response for America,
then, must be to quietly assist this growing population in
its quest for self-expression. In addition to the many moves we have outlined, it
will require breaking glass and retrenching from some
long-held stances in US foreign policy. It will require revisiting the support we continue to
give to certain despotic monarchies. IIt will require revisiting the policies we’ve had in
the Indian sub-continent for over 40 years—which has, in
many important respects, led to the growth of many of the
terrorist groups that attack us today. (Note that, in a
similar context, the U.S. funded and supported both Saddam
Hussein and Osama bin Laden when it suited our anti-Soviet
interests.)
THE WISDOM OF OUR FATHERS
In our Declaration of Independence,
drafted by a committee comprised of Thomas Jefferson,
Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, we collectively declare
that “all men are created equal”. Our actions and presumptions about others should not
betray this belief. The suggestions we make here are grounded in our
belief that people everywhere have similar hopes, desires
and needs--a need for family and love, a need for their
lives to have meaning, a need for comfort and sustenance. Over the long term, no people can be precluded from
fulfilling these needs. As we stated in our original essay, there has never
been a more important time to recall the wisdom of our
forefathers who inspired a nation and created a beacon for
the world with messages of love, forgiveness, humility and
healing. We remember Lincoln’s admonishment in his second
inaugural address, “with malice toward none, with charity
for all” … and Washington in his farewell address to
Congress, “Observe good faith and justice toward all
nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.” We would ask again, are these not still the values by
which we wish to be judged and represented in the world
arena? Ultimately, force does not subdue, it enrages. Friendship, respect and love are far more powerful
than force and vengeance will ever be; and they require an
active acknowledgement that as citizens of the world, all
men (and women) are created equal, walking arm-in-arm with
allies and presumed adversaries to seek common ground. That is our America, the America of our founding
fathers, and the America of generations yet to come.
Among our next steps, American Respect
is hoping to create a higher profile group of historians,
academics, international economic and policy experts and
other qualified citizens who share our views to form a sort
of defacto “speaker’s bureau” and “interview bureau” to
continue to disseminate these ideas. We are considering sponsoring or conducting a
conference on “Ending the War in Iraq: Diverse and Critical
Perspectives from Academics, Journalists, Diplomats and the
Military”. If
you have any suggestions for people we should approach in
that regard, please let us know. Meanwhile, we encourage you to forward this follow-up
essay to friends and neighbors and keep the discussion
going. Your
thoughts and ideas are always welcome, and we will continue
to post selected comments, both supportive and critical, at
our website, www.americanrespect.com
Thank you for your continued interest.
back to top^
part three
 Terrorism: A Brief for Americans
The Scope, Causes, and Means for
Reducing Terrorism, Including Commentary on Iraq
Nothing can excuse the horrors of terrorism. Yet terrorists are not
born. They are created by external forces. This essay will explain
the causes of terrorism, offer a solution to reducing terrorism, and
outline a realistic path forward. This is not an exclusive, or
unique, view. Rather, it incorporates, distills and synthesizes much
that has been written by historians and commentators in this area,
analyses that — unfortunately—have accurately forecast the events of
the last three years. We cite the works of those experts here to
augment our own opinions and buttress our recommendations. This
essay points to a path away from our dilemma and toward better
times.
You can download and read the entire essay in PDF form by
clicking
here. Or you can read the report section by section by clicking on the sections below.
back to top^
|
|
