Our current War on Terror is one of many wars the United States is currently waging against a faceless opponent. We have our War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, etc. What makes the War on Terror so disconcerting is that in actually fighting with a faceless enemy there are two important consequences: 1) it will be impossible to tell when the war is over/won, and 2) terrorists can be anybody, e.g. a group of religious zealots, a political party, a nation or even an American citizen. I will not bother discussing consequence #1 because I do not believe this war is being conducted to be won. Indeed if it had it would not have been called the War on Terror. Our leaders knew exactly what calling it a War on Terror would mean in terms of hope for a real victory. The fight against terrorism should be left to a competent justice system, i.e. a World Police. America has no right to proclaim itself as such.
No, I'd rather discuss consequence #2. This it seems is a much more dangerous consequence in that it allows the powers that be (i.e. the ones with the most money and best weapons) to decide who qualifies as a "terrorist". It was easily agreed upon immediately after 9/11 that what happened at the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of terrorism. So many of us, both within the US and abroad, were so shocked and emotionally tied to this event that there was really no other way to look at it. We felt attacked and other nations felt that if we could be attacked so could they. It was the perfect situation to declare unending war on an ambiguous enemy.
It is easy to portray an individual like Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist. He clearly used terror, i.e. violent tactics that aroused terror in his enemies, to promote his cause. The entire al Qaeda network is a pretty good target for the label "terrorists". What I see happening now is similar to what happened during the Red Scare, the term "terrorism" or the label "terrorist" is being tossed around by the media and private individuals carelessly and thoughtlessly. If you think I'm wrong please offer me a counter point. Make an argument that reveals the fundamental difference between McCarthyism and our ever-increasing need to label opposing forces as "terrorists". I argue that there isn't one. At this point in history just about every "civilized" nation has funded, supported or carried out some sort of terrorist act and the United States is definitely no exception. The next time you shake your head in sorrow or in anger after watching mainstream media coverage of the latest terrorist act take a moment to reflect on what was presented to you. Who were they after? Why did they do it? What point were they trying to prove? No group, not even al Qaeda, has only terror as its main objective. My belief is that terrorism is simply the use of terror (i.e. inflicting fear of death, pain and/or suffering) on a group of people in order to control, manipulate or change the way they behave. There is nothing humanitarian about going to war on terror. It is fighting fire with fire, which in my experience only produces a much larger fire. I'm not saying that America should never go to war and that all war is bad. War is often necessary. Defeating Nazi Germany, for example, was necessary. They had to be stopped because they were beyond the point of reason. That is what I argue is absent among our world leaders: reason, pure and simple.
Let's take a look at an example of a current situation in which a reasonable outcome is unlikely to occur. My husband posted an article on his Facebook page today about some recent developments in the Freedom Flotilla 2 saga. For those of you who don't know anything about the Freedom Flotilla 2, or didn't realize there was a Freedom Flotilla 1, I'll do my best to give you a brief run down. Since June of 2007 there has been an Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The UN declared the blockade illegal according to the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross has also expressed public concern over the blockade. Israel's excuse is that the blockade must continue in order to reduce the threat of Palestinian rocket attacks and other acts of terrorism on their people. Meanwhile, thousands of civilians are dying of starvation in Gaza. The first Freedom Flotilla was formed by an Irish couple after an American woman, Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer while acting as a human shield to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes. A flotilla of cargo and passenger ships manned by citizens from several nations, including the US, was formed with the intent to break the siege of Gaza. The flotilla was stopped by Israeli forces and several of the activists were killed and/or brutalized in the process. Now a second flotilla has been formed and has made its intentions of non-violent humanitarian aid clear to the public. Israel is preparing to stop the flotilla with more force than was used against the first one. What is our government's response to this Israeli threat to the peaceful endeavors of the flotilla? Well here is one example, this is the article Erich posted today: US Senator Wants US-Isreali Op Against Flotilla
After you read the article consider these additional points of interest to the matter:
1) Read the statement to the UN Human Rights Council given by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition: statement to UN Human Rights Council
2) Watch the statement given by Hillary Clinton after the murders aboard the Freedom Flotilla 1. In this statement she says, "The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable . Israel's legitimate security needs must be met as well as the Palestinian's legitimate needs for sustained humanitarian assistance and regular access for reconstruction materials must also be assured." (for the video clip click this link). The Freedom Flotilla is such an effort of humanitarian assistance, however, in a more recent publication this was said:
Hilary Clinton, a staunch supporter of the Tel Aviv regime, was quoted as saying “ We do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza,”.“And we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israeli’s have the right to defend themselves,” she added. (link to article)
Consider what she’s saying and research the truth behind it. Is the flotilla trying to provoke Israel? What earnest efforts has Israel made to allow for humanitarian aid in Gaza since the last flotilla?
3) Finally, think about what the George W. Bush administration declared as one of their objectives in the War on Terror. Below are the objectives in question and I’ve highlighted the points I think are relevant. Whose interests are being served if we openly allow Israel to kill citizens who are conducting peaceful acts in international waters?
Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
1. Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
4. Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability
How does your definition of terrorism fit into this issue? Are the people aboard the Audacity of Hope the problem? The Israeli blockade could be considered acts of terrorism, especially if you are a Palestinian. Why are we (as a nation) on Israel’s side? Why does our government not consider this an issue in which they should "integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad" ? Is what's being done in Gaza at the hands of one of our "allies" not in our interests? As a citizen of the US who do you support? Do you feel your interests are represented by the words of Hilary Clinton? If so, can you support them with fairness and reason?
The ultimate point I'd like to make is that in the Freedom Flotilla 2, and aboard the ship named the Audacity of Hope, we have American citizens who are making a statement about humanity. They may in fact be provoking Israel, but why shouldn't a country which is actively committing atrocities be provoked? Is a history of governmental agreements behind closed doors enough to let these acts not be considered terrorism? Is starving civilians really the way we want to encourage our friends to ensure their own national security? Why would it be so terrible for the US to support the efforts of the Flotilla? If your response to any of these questions focuses on economics and politics more than it does on basic human decency and what is truly good for humanity then maybe you have some more thinking to do, because I won't be convinced.
As always, be excellent to each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment