pinky-wink |
|
_______________
_______________ Recent Posts: What a weekend. Intellectual Conservative: an Oxymoron?
|
Monday, February 28, 2005
Can violence destroy terror?
stephenhoy's excellent blog over at xanga has a nice post today about the neo-con strategy to tame the middle east. It's good reading, and I recommend it. The main point seems to be the following (and I paraphrase):
The Bush team's strategy for defeating terrorism is to invade Iraq, and set up a stable democracy in order to apply pressure to neighboring countries. The pressure will be applied through the example of a Middle East democracy, which will cause the citizens of, say, Iran or Syria to begin to demand reform. The pressure of US troops in the neighborhood will also cause these suspect regimes to straight up their act, and start playing by the rules. Thus, though Iraq has been a difficult struggle, the battle is already won, and the effects are starting to be shown.Which makes a lot of sense, unless you really think about it. What, exactly, is our goal here? If the goal is to create stability in the Middle East, then this strategy may be effective. If, however, the goal is to eliminate the threat from terrorists, then this goal is woefully inadequate. For example, this goal assumes that taming countries like Iraq, Iran, and Syria will diminish the terrorist threat. While this may be true to some extent, there is no reason to assume that these victories will do anything to diminish the threat that is posed by Pakistan, North Korea, North Africa, or even the foothills of Montana. Tame Syria, and the terrorists run to Somalia. Boots on the ground in Somalia? The terrorists take refuge in Pakistan. There's no way to win. In short, this idea is bankrupt. It is a bombs and boots on the ground mentality that is not allowing the necessary work of foreign policy reform to take place. Instead of taking a step back after 9/11 and asking ourselves "why are these folks so pissed?", we have simply yelled "bombs away!" for the last four years. So far, the results are mixed, but one thing has become clear: terrorism has no state, and no face. It is not Bin Laden, it is not Iraq. It is a resistance to United States' power, and the hegemonic culture that we are perpetuating around the globe. It is a fight against Coke and Britney Spears' ass as much as it is a fight against "freedom". stephenhoy asks for historical examples of peaceful resistance bringing about change from dictatorship to self-government. While this seems a tall (and very specific) order, there are some excellent examples: Nelson Mandela and the end of Apartheid: Mandela remained in prison until February 1990, when sustained ANC campaigning and international pressure led to his release on 11 February, on the orders of state president F.W. de Klerk and the ending of the ban on the ANC. He and de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. Mandela had already been awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1988.Augusto Pinochet of Chile: From May 1983 the opposition and labour movements organized demonstrations and strikes against the regime, provoking violent responses by the security forces ... open presidential elections were held at the same time as the election of the congress that would have happened in either case. Pinochet left the presidency on March 11, 1990.There are others: the Civil Rights Movement in America, for example, or Ghandi. The point is clear: there are ways to change the destructive, violent behavior of terrorists. One way is to fight them with guns and bombs. Another way is to unite the world in defiance of terror. The unity will never be accomplished at the point of the gun, and it will not be easy. But it is the right way to win the war. The fact that I even have to argue this point shows how out of touch with Jesus the conservative movement has become. We hear much about the secularization of our society, but it is the secularization of the conservatives that is the most troubling, and dangerous threat to the future of this planet. Oh, there is one other example I forgot to mention. Jesus Christ overthrew the Roman Empire with radical teachings like: Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.  
|
6 Comments:
One of the things (and there are many) which has disappointed me about Bush and the "war on terror", is how initially he spoke of how this would be a different sort of war - a 21st century war. He made some good speeches after 9/11 about how this would be so. I thought that it made sense then, and still believe that it makes sense now. Unfortunately, that's not the gameplan that Bush appears to be following.
Since 9/11, we have waged a good old-fashioned 20th century war: troops deployed on the ground, various theaters of war, and use of the latest technology and equipment. We have gleefully rubbed our hands together over "shock and awe", which, if that isn't old school warfare, I'd like to know what is.
Where is the new and different type of war that we were supposed to be waging? It seems as though whenever someone, such as yourself, brings up different methods of going about handling things, they are scoffed at and derided.
One wonders if we (Americans) are really serious about this, or if we just like to see things get blowed-up real good?
*sigh*
Well, it takes vision and intelligence to fight a battle in a new way. History is full of generals and leaders who just-didn't-get-it in time to save their troops and even their countries. We like to think that we'd never make the mistakes of, say, George McClellan. But when our turn comes it seems that history just keeps repeating itself.
What bothers me the most is the conservatives who fashion themselves intellectuals, but spend most of their time creating abstract justifications for failed policies.
Why do these folks have such allegiance to their leaders? That is the mystery I would like to crack. If Clinton had invaded Iraq on the suspect evidence Colin Powell wheeled out at the UN these same conservatives would be calling for his impeachment, and so would I. Since it's their boy Bush, they spend ungodly amounts of energy shifting motives and creating abstract victories. It's bizarre, and eventually it will be shown to be foolishness.
In the meantime I guess we have to pick it apart every day and hope someone is listening.
*sigh*, indeed.
With all human history at your disposal, you selected those two examples??? Apartheid in the U.S.A. wasn't imposed by a dictatorship, but by the elected representatives of a ruling class. So it doesn't fit the pattern, although it's an important event.
The Allende - Pinochet case is worth studying in detail, particularly as it gives yet another example of the ill-advised covert intervention of superpowers to a minor threat. But to your point, why did Pinochet re-establish democratic rule after nearly two decades of military dictatorship in a way that permitted his own defeat at the polls? Why would a dictator allow himself to be un-elected?
Apartheid was not the law of the U.S., it was South Africa. The white ruling class was not elected by the blacks who suffered under apartheid, as blacks had no legal rights.
The point is that there are ways to overthrown unjust systems (even dictators) without military means. In fact, we are instructed as Christians to do that exact thing. Apartheid fits the pattern because the people who were oppressed by the system had no legal means with which to change the oppression. The same with Ghandi v. British Empire, same with the Civil Rights movement in the south.
Pinochet was forced to adopt elections in order to maintain a hold on power. The Chilean people had begun to revolt in the streets and he saw the elections as the only way to avoid a coup (even with the US on his side).
The same thing could have happened in Iraq, hopefully with the loss of fewer Iraqi lives.
But the bigger point is the precedent that we set when we shoot first and clean up the mess later. Pushing our will onto countries through our army only serves to create policy through fear and destruction. This is not the kind of foreign policy I, as a Christian, will support.
We should be in the business of inspiring the best in people. Instead we are in the business of using death and destruction to keep people in line.
You defend it. I can't
U.S.A. = Union of South Africa
Thanks for the clarification. Not exactly a defense of the use of violence to destroy terrorism, but an excellent clarification nonetheless.
Post a Comment
<< Home