Comments on "The (Probably) Right Answer to Terrorism"

Sebastion Mallaby's Column in the October 18th Washignton Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40842-2004Oct17.html

included the following paragraphs:

"Beyond these questions lies a bigger issue: a doubt not just about Iraq but about the entire war on terrorism. Perhaps this "war" should not be thought of as a war at all: Perhaps conceiving of it in military terms condemns us to lose it. If we behave like a new empire, we will alienate the people whose cooperation we need. So we better secure the homeland, hone our intelligence services and return to the law enforcement approach to terrorism that we pursued before Sept. 11; and we better not compromise values such as openness and tolerance and fairness. The battle against terrorism is really a battle of ideas. Our values are our sharpest weapons.

I understand this argument. I grew up mainly in Britain, where the rule in responding to the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army was not to respond excessively. When Margaret Thatcher's hotel was blown to smithereens in 1984, she did not disappear onto an air force jet, as George Bush did on Sept. 11. Instead, she appeared before the television cameras in her earrings: "Life must go on," she declared defiantly. There was pressure from the right wing of her party to respond to force with force. But Thatcher determined that the most forceful response of all would be business as usual.

Is that the right answer now? I support the Iraq war because I doubt it. The fanaticism of suicide-ready terrorists, coupled with the proliferation of horrible weapons, causes the analogy with European terrorism to break down: The threat we confront is on a different scale, and the response needs to be different. If we were faced with the prospect of a few hotel bombings, we could afford to be restrained: We could put values such as freedom before physical security. But today we face the possibility that someone wants to nuke New York. I am not willing to rely on the Statue of Liberty for protection."


Tell me -- how is it feasible to wage war on a tactic??

To wage war we need to be able to identify the enemy, and go after them where they are based. How before they act, do we go about identifying a terrorist?? Last time I looked we were not capable of reading peoples' minds and identifying likely threats with any degree of accuracy --- witness Sadaam and his WMD's.

If we seriously pursue the War on Terror we are doomed to lose everything we care about --- even our own values --- witness Abu Ghraib.

The War on Terror is in no way making us safer.

Nuclear material -- if there ever was any -- not to mention Saddam's extensive stockpiles of conventional weapons were able to escape Iraq to only God knows where as a direct result of the chaos and fog of the War on Terror as waged in Iraq.

We have not successfully captured and prosecuted anyone (other than John Michael Lindh and a couple of soldiers involved in Abu Ghraib) since we began the War, though eventually, we may end up with a successful prosecution of Saddam. -- But how has any of this made us safer??

Yes, we have killed terrorists, but in the process we have become Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting tool. Potential terrorists are without number. More are born each day (both literally and figuratively).

We need to face our vulnerability and come to terms with it.

We are not safe, in fact no one is safe, from the possiblity of nuclear attack, or some other form of attack.

This is the human condition.

It was true before 9/11 and remains true after 9/11.

Human life is fragile.

America, humankind and human civilization, though substantially more robust than any single human life, are vulnerable. (These facts were emotionally present to some of us prior to 9/11. If 9/11 was your emotional wake-up call to these facts --- seek help. Please don't mascarade them as rational arugments for the War on Terror.)

The War on Terror is a dangerous detour that plays directly into the hands of the terrorists. Our world is not black and white, or even shades of gray, it's full of color.

An effective response to terrorism will reframe the situation in such a way that all but the most colorblind, are drawn away from the terrorist's view.

By insisting on the "War on Terror", we are simply feeding the mindset of the terrorists and asking the world to choose sides. We need a Reframe --- not a War. (I suggest a medical metaphor -- Terrorism as a global illness.)

I am deeply disappointed in Tony Blair. His speech in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 gave me hope that maybe something new and good could come out of 9/11, but instead he hooked up with Bush -- who is effectively blind, deaf, dumb, and lame with respect to appropriate leadership and effective policies in every area.

May God have mercy on us, if we reelect him in November. We really will need the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to become capable of speech, and the lame to walk.

Conceptual Slipstreaming

Thirst, hunger, desire, search, quest, hunt, seek, crave.
Devotion.
Affection, connection.
Shalom, peace, wholeness.
Ecstasy, rapture.
Hope, Faith, Love.
Delight, joy.
Contentment, comfort, satisfaction.
Dead, dry, lifeless, lost, broken, crooked, wounded, buried, abandoned, destroyed, dessicated, decayed, dispersed, scattered.
Perseverance, persistence, tenacity, determination
Commitment, promise, contract, treaty, agreement, covenant.
Holy, consecrated, devoted, sacred.
Live, grow, learn, share, have, hold, give, receive, sit, run, walk , sleep, stand.

Entertainment?

I was on DailyKOS in the comments thread discussing the debates and what Molly Ivins has referred to elsewhere as Bush's "bubble boy syndrome" and its impact on the debates. Several folks in the thread were saying that the National Media's desire for an exciting horserace will likely have them pulling and spinning for Bush tonight, and I hate to say it, but I think they might be right.

This is a very sad state of things.

In the world of Infotainment, nothing really matters except eyeballs and dollars. It's about generating excitement to get people to tune in. In their drive for dollars the networks are dishing out a sort of virtual opiate. And like the siren's song -- it's seductive.

We can respond to this is a variety of ways. -- We can mount "Just Say No" campaigns that push people to turn it off, or by drawing on the most egregious examples of the genre, we can mount campaigns for regulation or outright bans. But perhaps that's not our best strategy.

Granted, it is one we are very familiar with. But the last time I looked, the War on Drugs was a losing proposition.

Infotainment is a virtual drug. And the Corporate Media are pushers surrounded by eager buyers. As long as there is demand, there will be supply.

The real question is why. What is wrong?

The Washington Post today has a article about how youth are finding ways to abuse over-the counter drugs to get high.

Clearly, here in the US we are living in a culture of addiction -- if it's not booze, or drugs, or food, or sex, its a virtual high -- extreme sports, horror, infotainment, video and on-line gaming, the list is endless. Why?

If humankind was normally this prone to addiction, we would not have survived to this point in history. Something is wrong. What?

How do we fix it?

Maybe it's time to stop casting blame -- whether at the victims or the perpetrators, and take a new look at life in these United States.

Where are our healthy communities? Do they have things in common? What are they doing differently?

And how do people successfully move beyond addiction?

First Post

Okay, I've finally done it. I set up a Blog.

At this point I'm not sure how often I'll be posting, but the state of the world and the state of democracy in the US have got me to the point where I'm convinced that those of us with something to say in contrast or counterpoint to the staus quo, need to be saying it, and saying it to as many people as possible.

I've been doing my bit.

It started after 9/11 when I began voraciously researching topics on-line, and delving into the wider, largely unaddressed context of our times. At this point, I had feelings, but no words, or at least not words I was ready to share widely.

Thanks to Howard Dean, and the interactions and involvement that came my way through Indianapolis for Dean and Indianapolise for Democracy, I've found my voice.

And perhaps more importantly, I've committed myself to speak and to act. Now is not a time for silence.

My actions are channeled through Indy for Democracy and Little Eagle Creek Christian Church.

This blog is my place for speaking -- not that I am silent elsewhere, but this place offers a wider scope in both space and time.  -- Sandy Hawk