Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Can terrorism be cured?
Steven Metz is Research Professor and Chairman of the Department of Regional Strategy and Planning at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
by Steven Metz
Terrorism is likely to define the year 2006 as much as it has every year since 2001. Years from now, historians will likely label the opening years of the twenty-first century the “Age of Terrorism.” As with any new era, we do not yet fully understand what is happening and why. While most of the world recognises the problem, there are very different views on its causes and cures.
This much we know: terrorism is fueled by anger and frustration. Radicals use the inability to attain political objectives peacefully to inspire fanatical action and to justify forms of violence normally considered unacceptable. Beyond this basic point, however, there is less agreement on why frustration and anger lead to terrorism in some cases but not in others. Moreover, there are two broad schools of thought as to the appropriate response when they do fuel extremist violence.
One school believes that modern terrorism cannot be eradicated, or that the costs of doing so are unacceptably high. For this group, the only logical policy is to “ride out the storm” by ending policies which increase anger and frustration, and improving intelligence and defenses.
The second school of thought contends that terrorism can be eradicated by addressing its root causes. Ironically, its adherents include both George W Bush and Osama bin Laden. For bin Laden and those who share his ideas, anger and frustration in the Islamic world stem from outside repression and exploitation of Muslims. If the repression ends, so, too, will terrorism. Until then, all means are legitimate when fighting a powerful and wicked enemy. Terrorism, for bin Laden and his allies, is the only method available to strike at the West effectively. “It is permissible,” according to bin Laden’s ally in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, “to spill infidel blood.”
Bush, in contrast, believes that terrorism is rooted in the absence of political and economic opportunity. Rather than grappling with this, radicals like bin Laden blame outsiders, particularly the United States and Europe. But the ultimate solution, according to Bush, is the creation of fair and open political and economic systems that can eliminate anger and frustration through peaceful means. Extremists might still exist, but they would be marginalised, finding few recruits or supporters.
Unfortunately, every approach has shortcomings. The belief that terrorism cannot be eradicated assumes that the ability to tolerate terrorist attacks – to “ride out the storm” – is greater than the willingness of terrorists to persist, or even escalate the attacks. By taking an essentially passive position, this approach might merely prolong the Age of Terrorism needlessly. Moreover, appeasement is based on the dangerous assumption that the extremists’ objectives are limited – that once they attain their stated goals by using violence, they will become responsible members of the world community.
Bin Laden’s position – that terrorism will end when the Islamic world expels outside influence – is ethically and analytically flawed. On the one hand, it would condemn hundreds of millions to live in repressive Iranian- or Taliban-style theocracies. On the other hand, the idea that poverty and repression in the Islamic world are engineered from outside simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
Finally, the belief that democracy and economic reform will undercut terrorism is based on a series of assumptions that may or may not prove accurate. For instance, it assumes that terrorists and their supporters do not understand their own anger. But extremists say explicitly that their anger is caused by the injustice of the global system and the repressive policies of powerful states. Closed political systems and stagnant economies in the Muslim world, they contend, are symptoms, not causes.
The Bush position also assumes that fundamental political and economic change is feasible and affordable – that open political and economic systems can be sustained with only modest effort – because the desire for freedom and prosperity is universal. While true, it is not clear that a willingness to tolerate the freedom of others, which democracy requires, is equally widespread. In some societies, democracy is simply a way for the majority to repress the minority. In others, stability or justice is more important than political freedom.
Finally, this perspective assumes that democracies will be willing or able to control radicalism and crack down on extremists. But history suggests that new, fragile democracies are more likely to attempt to placate radicals than to eliminate them, and that terrorists can exploit democratic governments’ respect for civil rights and the rule of law.
The horrible truth is that failure to eradicate the root causes of terrorism is almost certain to extend the Age of Terrorism, it is not clear that they really can be eradicated. To appease the extremists might be easy but may not work. To allow them to win would be to accept the supremacy of evil. To promote democracy and open government might be the ultimate solution, but it stands on a shaky conceptual foundation of untested assumptions about the nature of the world and diverse cultures.
Unfortunately, the world is at a point where it can see the danger from terrorism but not the cure. Worse still, a cure may not exist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Dancing the poverty polka
Mike, I think you've missed the point that I was making. I proffered a scenario under which a person might not be prepared to accept an offer of peace. I didn't suggest it was the only scenario and I didn't suggest that it was the only reason that a person might continue with a terrorist agenda. My point was that, even with the likelihood of a peaceful resolution available, some people's fanaticism, bitterness and /or hatred will not allow them to countenance that prospect, and so, even in the best possible scenarios, there is likely to be residual terrorism. Remember how many Loyalist and Republican splinter groups there were still committing atrocities as peace was breaking out in Northern Ireland?
On your second point, I think it is a mistake to see Middle East terrorism as exclusively religious in its roots. That's not to say that religious zealots of all faiths cannot capture the hopelessness of their co-religionists and mould it to their own agendas — that clearly happens. As a devout atheist I have an abhorrence of all religious zealots.
Imagine, if you'll follow me for a moment, that, in the wake of the Great War, the great powers had not redrawn the "national" boundaries of the Middle East. Imagine if those powers, specifically the British and the Americans, had not done shabby deals to gain control of the region's oil resources. Imagine if the people whose land the oil lay under had been able to use that wealth to develop their economies and build their standard of living to match that of the European and North American societies. How much terrorism do you think a comfortably well-off people would generate. Are there Australian and American terrorist leaders running amok all over the world? Why not do you think?
I think Metz is right on the spot. Anger and frustration. Despair, injustice and utter hopelessness. These are the sources of terrorism.
I know you won't agree with me Mike, and you'll probably tell me about what a powerful force Islam is in those Arab societies. I think I can explain that too. Think about the Christian world. Where do you think you might find the greatest concentrations of fervently devout Christians? Can I suggest South America? Why? The scale of poverty is probably the greatest there (I'm making generalisations here and I know it, please don't come back to me with statistics) and Christianity offers a hope of a better future — albeit in Heaven. When there's absolutely nothing else in your life that promises a release from grinding poverty or injustice, a religion that offers a better future must look extremely attractive. Couldn't that same notion operate in the Arab world? I'm talking about the common people here, those that provide the soldiery for the terrorist oragnisations.
None of this directly explains the involvement of well-to-do Arabs in terrorist activities, and it's not intended to. But is it so unusual in history that a wealthy person might lend their wealth, knowledge, contacts, prestige, etc. to a cause to free their people from what they perceived to be the yoke of oppression? That their personal motives are not always pure isn't the issue.
Let's face it Mike. Bin Laden, Bashir and their like are not going to roll over and let W, Tony and the Man of Steel rub their tummies, are they? But if their followers didn't suffer or perceive poverty and injustice, then there wouldn't be any followers and they'd lose their power base. Is this going to happen overnight? Of course not. And that was the point of my post.
Mike to Terry
nail on the head
Syd Drate has hit the nail on the head. We have evolved beyond these despotic ideological belief systems that are from primitive times. They reflect themselves in all ways as being superstitious fearful and violent. It doesn't matter what is done, as long as the god religions have any form of influence, on the day to day operations of the world, we will have terrorism.
The cure as Syd says, is the removal of monotheistic religions. Naturally thats easier said than done, history and common sense tells us that there is but one way to do that, violently. They are not open to dialogue, nor reason, not one faction of the god belief system can be relied upon to be truthful in their intent or actions.
However it won't happen and we will just go deeper into the mire as religions strive to gain control. The biggest mistake the West has made, was to open their borders to those whose way of life and expression are barbaric. But the political correct of the world will just go on saying, we must be compassionate and bring these people here so that we can give them the lifestyle we enjoy. Result, growing fear within every civilised country in the world an collapse of law and order.
The saddest and most glaring thing is, that our leaders support more and more immigration from these places. Note how they all pray to god when they open parliamentary sessions. What hope do we have when the perpetrators of this growing violence, run the countries. Will the people wake up and get rid of them before it's too late. No, on polling day like blind enslaved lemmings, they will go and vote for the Lib/Lab coalition or another stupid party and our country will continue to collapse.
Non Injury
Not sure what you are getting at Alga for on one hand you call Western society civilised yet Western culture generally believes in monotheism of which you say “They are not open to dialogue, nor reason, not one faction of the god belief system can be relied upon to be truthful in their intent or actions.”
Then you write: “The biggest mistake the West has made was to open their borders to those whose way of life and expression are barbaric.” Who is it you call barbaric? Those who believe in Allah?
You give me the impression that the Western monotheistic cultures are superior to the Eastern monotheistic cultures thus we should not allow them to share our space. Yet in reality we share the same God.
To be frank your comment appears to be riddled with contradiction for if you are attempting to infer that we in the West are more civilised than others then a quick look at history will teach you that we of the West have committed some of the most barbaric and disgusting crimes on those we consider inferior.
The last two hundred years of Australian history and also America's history will teach us that we have rationalised our barbaric behaviour to justify our theft of a country and the slaughter and oppression of indigenous people whose belief systems we not in sympathy with ours.
Maybe I have missed your point and if so allow me to apologise however they way your comments stands at present simply confuses me.
Personally I doubt whether religion itself is the problem rather those who exploit it for their own greedy and insidious agendas. As I stated earlier I am a religious opportunist or a theo–hussy and when it comes to personal behaviour I tend to believe in the primary behavioural principle of Buddhism which permeates all other religions, and that is simply, non-injury.
If you wish to redefine your comment then please do but I would advise you to proceed with caution.
Primitive, not barbaric...
Phil, I should have said primitive not actually barbaric. What “Eastern monotheistic cultures” are you referring to?
“I tend to believe in the primary behavioural principle of Buddhism which permeates all other religions, and that is simply, non-injury.” I agree with you, but Buddhism is not monotheistic, to the best of my knowledge. If I were to believe in a religion, then it would lean towards Buddhism.
I agree with all you say, except that I feel that we in this country are becoming more civilised, or I hope so. But then again when you look at the whole picture, we are just as stupid as we have always been in relationship to all our environments.
However, I do still see that religion (middle eastern derived religion to be specific), is the problem. I can see that I shall have to be more precise in my definitions, thank you for pointing it out. Religion to me has an unseen force that has a grip on the world. That force is a combination of the thought forms of the religions of the world. As these thought forms emanate from humans, so they affect humans controlled by these isms. Currently the most powerful thought forms are emanating from Abrahamic derived religions. So no matter what anyone does, until those thought form energies are dissipated, it will remain in control and lead us to conflict. Just as it did in previous era's. This time though, instead of it being isolated to some areas of the world, it now encompasses all of the world.
Once this pressure is relieved, calm will return. Sadly, that will have to mean lots of pain and suffering affecting everyone. I also feel that those that will survive will be those that reject religion and beliefs, that aim to control and not free people.
So there you go, Phil. Something for you to pull apart and have a laugh at. I would be interested in what your solution or outcomes would be, that hasn't been tried before. It’s like our inevitable environment collapse, if you see that problem and prepare as best you can, whilst not causing harm to others, then you may just get through the combination physical and psychological war and the collapse of our support systems.
Syd Drate...
Syd Drate: "They were all conceived when man was illiterate and superstitious, and they were conned by the likes of Jesus, Moses, Mohamed who were after all sweet talking conmen. If we gave it a go for 10 years (a religious free world) I think we would see a great difference".
You sound like John Lennon. Oh the songs he could of penned in the last twenty years!
Sure you have not got a hotline to heaven?
Syd and Jay
Cheers.
PS as communism is officially an athiestic state of being, there are billions of people imagining this and living for today. So many is hard to imagine here in Abbott's (two in the parliament) electorate. I guess there the decisions are just based upon the health of the person and the state, but not the soul. Here it is the soul and the state but not the person.
PPS Isn't it further amazing that the PR gurus apparently banned John Lenon's Imagine and Cat Steven's Peace Train from the all embracing Clear Channel service in the lead up to the Iraq War 2.
I wonder what will be banned in the lead up to Iran. Anyone been there lately?
Hamish: Angela! Where've ya been? I missed you.
Albert Einstein believed
Albert Einstein believed that "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Steven Metz illustrates the thinking that has created the problem. It cannot be used to produce the ‘cure’ to which he aspires.
The nature of this thinking is exposed by his choice of words; what he chooses to emphasise, and what he decides to exclude. Consciously or unconsciously he speaks with the voice of the present US regime, although this voice is not distinctly different from that of previous US governments. A significant degree of consistency exists, probably unsurprisingly, and has permeated US policy making since at least the era of the War to End Wars and Woodrow Wilson.
Recognising that primary responsibility, since the War Against Fascism at least, for the military, political and economic circumstances of the Middle East lies with the USA, and that their unilateralism has produced today’s Iraq disaster, Einstein would believe that it is not possible for them to engineer a ‘cure’ that might have any chance of success.
Perhaps, like me, he would think that they can make their greatest contribution to a ‘cure’ through an expeditious withdrawal. Their continuing presence amplifies problems in Iraq, an admission made belatedly by their own generals but avoided by Steven Metz. Their historic support for Israel as a nuclear military power aggravates existing problems. Their unwillingness to allow Iran to develop civilian nuclear power is creating major new problems. Their brutal blockade, destruction and pollution of Iraq have created potentially intractable problems. Their political Frankenstein in Iraq exposes their naivety concerning regional and ethnic problems. The 1953 CIA coup in Iran produced a large fundamentalist problem, while their arming of the belligerents in the 1980-8 Iraq/Iran war bred 1990’s problems. In reality, the US presence in the Middle East since WWII can be seen, now with the benefit of considerable hindsight, to have produced major problems and to have ‘cured’ none.
Of course that will not cause the USA to leave the Middle East. It has understood the energy equation since Eisenhower identified its stupendous value. It will remain. This disaster will have a long history.
Therefore, when Steven Metz refers confidently to what George Bush thinks or believes, espouses views to which Bush claims to adhere, or reiterates the positions Bush takes publicly or privately, he is largely referring to an irrelevance. Barring a change by the Supreme Court to the tenure of US Presidents (affected perhaps through the strategic contribution of new Bush-appointed judges) Bush will be gone rather soon. The crisis in the Middle East will remain. A new President will emerge. Steven Metz will embrace the rhetoric of the new regime which will, to a very great degree, be built upon the same principles as US governments of the past 60 years, with minor changes in emphasis. The crisis in the Middle East will endure. It was ever thus.
As Einstein recognised in successive theories concerning relativity, the very presence of the observer alters the behaviour of the observed in fundamental ways. In Iraq and Afghanistan the presence of the occupier does the same. In Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the crescent of ‘stans’ this truth holds. While the absence of the USA from the Middle East remains hypothetical it is impossible for Metz to recognise the degree to which it will contribute to the ‘cure’. In the meantime, and notwithstanding his apparently thoughtful analysis, Metz is wrong and Einstein correct.
The USA cannot 'cure' terrorism or the Middle East, problems of its own making.
Terrorism? What Terrorism?
"Steven Metz is a Research Professor and Chairman of the Department of Regional Strategy and Planning at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute."
He is also a class A1 neoconservative!
Let’s examine a little of what he is saying. He starts off with: “Years from now, historians will likely label the opening years of the twenty-first century the ‘Age of Terrorism’.” Well, indeed, most historians will. Though those historians in the West will be documenting that history from the Western point of view, historians in the far larger Islamic and non-Western world will be documenting the same history from the their point of view – a view that is far more realistic in terms of the amount of ‘terrorism’ that has been committed and by whom. Put simply, the ‘West’ has killed far more people of the ‘East’ than the ‘East’ have killed that are from the ‘West’ – especially when that is couched in terms of those Westerners that have been killed in their own country by people from outside of their country – which is comparatively few – compared with non-westerners (people from Islamic nations) that have been killed by Westerners who are from outside of their countries – hundreds of thousands, (if not millions that the US have killed over the years).
Metz goes on to tell us that: “This much we know: terrorism is fuelled by anger and frustration. Radicals use the inability to attain political objectives peacefully to inspire fanatical action and to justify forms of violence normally considered unacceptable.”
Well, ain’t that the truth! But who are these radicals? They wouldn’t be the neoconservatives would they? Certainly the anger and frustration of the neocons that followed the failure of GHW Bush to follow up the eviction of Saddam from Kuwait with his ousting from power did indeed fuel the fanatical action that they thought justified the forms of violence that would normally be considered unacceptable. Witness Abu Graib if you want violence. Or Fallujah. Or any of the other massacres by shooting, artillery fire and aerial bombardment of innocent Iraqi civilians that the US has been responsible for ever since they began their illegal and immoral invasion, occupation and plundering of Iraq.
Metz tries desperately to frame a contrast to explain the root causes of ‘terrorism’. Read it for yourself. It fails to explain either for the right or the left in terms of something that either could intelligently (and I use the term guardedly) agree upon as an answer to the problem. Terror is something that all those caught up in will experience. Regardless of the status of those that suffer, all war is terrorism. Just because one is dressed as a soldier does not mean to say that a soldier, a mere human in uniform, is not him or herself terrified any less than any civilian from either side is.
Terrorism is delivered by all sorts of people with all sorts of motives not least of which is the US who desire to prevail in its efforts to maintain hegemony in a region that provides most of the world’s energy resources with the support of a nation that it considers is most like itself within the region – Israel.
Those that are accused of being terrorists – the insurgents in Iraq and the resistors of Israeli occupation in Palestine – are in reality defenders against the terrorism perpetrated by the West and their allies. The other so-called ‘terrorists’ that the US persist in mythologising, Osama bin Laden and the Scarlet Pimpernel of the Middle East, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, (al Qaeda leader in Iraq), are simply propaganda characters that have long since ceased to exist except in the imagination of people like Steven Metz...
This man advises governments!
Bryan Law, I agree.
I read it in increasing wonder at the confusion and inadequacy of the analysis. Just to remind people, "Steven Metz is Research Professor and Chairman of the Department of Regional Strategy and Planning at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute".
Dr Metz "has been an advisor to political organisations, campaigns and commissions; served on many national security policy task forces; testified in both houses of Congress; and spoken on military and security issues around the world".
Metz characterizes the two responses to terrorism as essentially appeasement (wimpy liberals, presumably) or attacking the "root causes" (Bush/bin Laden). He gets it 180 degrees wrong. (But is correct in lumping Bush and bin Laden together.)
"[E]nding policies which increase anger and frustration" is actually addressing the root causes. Without fertile soil for the roots, terrorism will wither and die.
Bush's policy of democracy and the free market (provided by Halliburton, no tenders) at the point of a gun does not address the root causes, but acts as fertiliser. It might have a chance if it weren't for the gun, and Halliburton, but those are necessary to make sure they get it right. Don't mention the Oil.
But it is easy to be critical. We should embark on a rather better analysis.
The World
"Unfortunately, the world is at a point where it can see the danger from terrorism but not the cure. Worse still, a cure may not exist."
Which world?
Cure
Make your own arguments
Syd Drate, if you wish to make statements about cures for the world''s problems then you are at liberty to do so on your own account. In my comment I may no mention or proposal as to a cure If you read the main article you will see that I quoted the last sentence of it and then posed a question. If you wish to make you views, don't drag me into them. Maybe you could be more conSydDrate.
Errorism
What do we do with a religious fundamentalist who uses chemical weapons against civilian populations to brutally impose his own Messianic values on others with appalling loss of life?
Well, if you're Steven Metz, you call him Mr President and produce the kind of mindless pap we see above.
No wonder the US Military can't function effectively if their officers are being "educated" with this sort of drivel.