Terrorism is a risk our foreign policy leaders are willing to take.
I'm going to speak heresy here, so forgive me.
We can't stop terrorism, at least not in any conventional sense. The numbers and political realities are simply against that proposition. The Britain plot was roughly 20 people. There are 1.8 million Muslims in Britain. By no means am I suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists, but out of a population of 1.8 million of almost any group, I think you could certainly find 20 disposed towards violence.
Look at the anti-abortionists in the US, or White Supremacists, or environmentalists, who are already exhibiting a tendency towards violence from within elements of these groups.
Now, broaden those small populations to include 1.3 billion people. 99.99998% of them could have no tendency towards violence, yet the group could still throw up twenty terrorists.
My point is this, the only solution to Islamic terrorism is to address the grievances and root causes from which it stems, both the direct political issues, and broader societal issues which are currently being crammed together under the language of "alienation."
And, frankly, there's no real motion in that direction.
The cost of truly ending terrorism might be too high.
I don't really want to launch the evaluative argument here, but terrorism is really a matter of foreign policy risk analysis. Is the increased risk of terrorism worth keeping a US military presence in the middle east? Is the geopolitical and economic benefit of influencing the oil powers worth the current terror risk? What about supporting Israel? Or leveraging China?
I don't know, but those analyses are being made right now. The US is at risk of terrorism because a decision has been made that certain policies are worth that mitigated risk. This isn't a Republican/Democrat or an anti-Bush issue, it's a broader issue made present by a combination of US hegemony and foreign policy coupled with advances in modern communication, transportation, and chemistry.
The bottom line is that there will be more attacks and more people will die (although when, where, and how is still subject to the efforts on both sides.)
Terrorism is a risk our foreign policy leaders are willing to take.
We can't stop terrorism, at least not in any conventional sense. The numbers and political realities are simply against that proposition. The Britain plot was roughly 20 people. There are 1.8 million Muslims in Britain. By no means am I suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists, but out of a population of 1.8 million of almost any group, I think you could certainly find 20 disposed towards violence.
Look at the anti-abortionists in the US, or White Supremacists, or environmentalists, who are already exhibiting a tendency towards violence from within elements of these groups.
Now, broaden those small populations to include 1.3 billion people. 99.99998% of them could have no tendency towards violence, yet the group could still throw up twenty terrorists.
My point is this, the only solution to Islamic terrorism is to address the grievances and root causes from which it stems, both the direct political issues, and broader societal issues which are currently being crammed together under the language of "alienation."
And, frankly, there's no real motion in that direction.
The cost of truly ending terrorism might be too high.
I don't really want to launch the evaluative argument here, but terrorism is really a matter of foreign policy risk analysis. Is the increased risk of terrorism worth keeping a US military presence in the middle east? Is the geopolitical and economic benefit of influencing the oil powers worth the current terror risk? What about supporting Israel? Or leveraging China?
I don't know, but those analyses are being made right now. The US is at risk of terrorism because a decision has been made that certain policies are worth that mitigated risk. This isn't a Republican/Democrat or an anti-Bush issue, it's a broader issue made present by a combination of US hegemony and foreign policy coupled with advances in modern communication, transportation, and chemistry.
The bottom line is that there will be more attacks and more people will die (although when, where, and how is still subject to the efforts on both sides.)
Terrorism is a risk our foreign policy leaders are willing to take.
posted by mikevotes at
3:38 PM
8 Comments:
Very well put. I've often said you can't bomb an idea. The only way to defeat terrorism is to examine the causes, beyond the spurious "They hate us because we're free." The war in Iraq was never to fight terrorism, it was mainly to seize the gulf region's oil assets from China.(Israel's security plays into it as well, but to mention that gets you labeled an anti-semite)
Our foreign policy leaders need terrorist conspiracies and terrorist acts to continue their justification for controlling the oil, thereby controlling the world.
By
Lew Scannon, at 5:50 PM
Terorism fits right into this regime's agenda. It IS all about the fear. Maintain the fear, you maintain control and power. If it was really just about oil, we'd be hearing serious moves toward energy independence, starting with conservation and even higher gas prices than we have now. Have you heard that? No, and you won't.
Lew is right, but I also think these folks do believe they can somehow democratize (and Christianize) the Middle East. Because, to some extent, they are delusional.
By
QuakerDave, at 9:10 PM
No motion in that direction - we won't even have face to face talks with them.
Certainly to try to solve such deep rooted social and political problems, we have to talk.
We don't care to talk to them, because as Lew said, it's not about them.
By
Unknown, at 9:20 PM
Dead on, Lew.
Iraq was a queen move on the Grand Chessboard. And it was a bad one.
That's what the "new American century" is all about. The idea was that we could check China's rise through military force. That was our one big advantage, and we've squandered it in the desert.
Dave, you're certainly right on the political front about the use of fear. It is to their advantage. But what I'm trying to argue in this post is that terrorism results from forces greater than just this administration. The neoliberal economic foreign policy is what fuels this and that stretches back multiple presidencies.(since Reagan?)
But the Bush admin is unique in that it has harnessed this byproduct and turned it into a political advantage. It's so messed up that it is to their political advatage to have the US under threat.
Time, if there were talks held with "them," not sure whether you mean Al Qaeda or Iran/Hezbullah, but the problem is the same. If the US enters into negotiations, it would have to formally stake out it's individual fence posts. Vaguely talking about freedom doesn't require an open admission that the goals are to mercantilize the world to US's advantage.
And just as a general, I'm a strong believer in the multi motivation theory of the invasion of Iraq. If it had worked as they planned (right word?) it would've put big pressure on China and Iran, aided Israel, added 22 million consumers, opened another market for US oil companies, etc, etc. So, the move to war in the halls of power was really a coalition of the neocons and businessmen. (notice I don't have human rights in that list.)
And, I think the "christianizing" is really the "marketizing," the conversion to an 80's style Latin American type economic relationship.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:41 PM
Thanks Mike, it needs saying over and over again.
There will always be social misfits, but it should remember proto-Americans were terrorists until they booted the Brits.
There was a fair grievance which was't being addressed. It should also be remebered that there is an intercine war in the Muslim world, which really doesn't have a great deal to do with us; apart from resource greed that is.
Terrorism is a failed policy tool for the West, it's time to let it go.
By
Cartledge, at 11:17 PM
It just seems that terrorism is always presented in the American media seperate from the reality that there are fundamental reasons for it.
They tend to present the "hate us for our freedom" line indirectly by stripping it of all context.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 12:47 PM
It's pretty much an easy sell, and hawks thrive on an enemy.
I'm starting to think that Americans are far too serious about everything.
As a Brit diplomat recently said, never trust a country that can't laugh at itself - the same goes for people.
We are all flawed in some regard, accept it, laugh at it even, and get on.
But respect the rights of others in the process.
By
Cartledge, at 7:02 PM
I think you're right, but I also think it's a forced seriousness in an effort to gain gravitas.
Not deToqueville, but a pretty good generalizing observation on America right now.
And, I would argue that it's fairly new coming in 2001 with this president (9/11?) because furing the Clinton years we were far more prone to let it all hang out. Perhaps it's an outgrowth of the new forced morality.
I mean, if you look at the the forced morality countries, Iran, Saudi, Japan a generation ago, they all didn't have much mirth.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:42 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home