My Response to a Reader of this Blog
A reader of this blog, Andrew Pass asks, “My only real question is how could a civilized government ever possibly win a war against terrorists?”
Well, Andrew, you don’t win it by lowering yourself to the level of the terrorists by torture and indefinite detention. Terrorism is caused by people who feel aggrieved against those they inflict terror or some other persons on whom they cannot inflict terror so they find another victim. Many who support terrorism feel that it is their only avenue for airing their side of the argument at the core of this grievance. Leaders of terrorist groups often play upon ignorance of their supporters and prejudices that their supporters have toward the target of their terrorism. Often the poverty of supporters adds to their anger and they turn to the terrorists as their champions to raise them out of their mean existence. The Islamic terrorists don’t “hate our freedom” as President Bush, his administration and his apologists in the media claim. They hate elements of US foreign policy and they perceive the growing American cultural intrusion into their society as a morally lacking cancer leading the people away from a more right-wing conservative religious stance (yes, Islamic fundamentalists are right-wing conservatives in their culture) to a more liberal viewpoint approaching that of Americans.
Also you cannot “win” a war on terrorism anymore than you can “win” a war on murder or theft. You can reduce the incidents of the above, but you will never eliminate the possibility. I think that may be what you were getting at by your question.
You can decrease the support for terrorists by understanding the arguments the terrorists use to gain the assent of their supporters. Learn the source of the grievances and address those feelings letting the supporters know that their side can be told and understood without resorting to violence. Some terrorist leaders have ulterior motives and are only using the grievances of their supporters as means to gain more power for themselves. Addressing the source of the problems removes from the terrorists their greatest recruitment tool. Without the support of the masses the terrorists are viewed as bullies and villains by the people they claim to be fighting for.
This would be the closest thing to winning the war on terror. But we would need a leader willing to think like this. Willing to use diplomacy over the military option. Our current leader thinks that it is possible to bomb and shoot the masses into submission. This will only strengthen support for the terrorists and drive that support underground where it will be impossible for us to track.
I hope we someday have a leader willing to mount a true War on Terror, but that day for now must remain in our future.
Joe
Well, Andrew, you don’t win it by lowering yourself to the level of the terrorists by torture and indefinite detention. Terrorism is caused by people who feel aggrieved against those they inflict terror or some other persons on whom they cannot inflict terror so they find another victim. Many who support terrorism feel that it is their only avenue for airing their side of the argument at the core of this grievance. Leaders of terrorist groups often play upon ignorance of their supporters and prejudices that their supporters have toward the target of their terrorism. Often the poverty of supporters adds to their anger and they turn to the terrorists as their champions to raise them out of their mean existence. The Islamic terrorists don’t “hate our freedom” as President Bush, his administration and his apologists in the media claim. They hate elements of US foreign policy and they perceive the growing American cultural intrusion into their society as a morally lacking cancer leading the people away from a more right-wing conservative religious stance (yes, Islamic fundamentalists are right-wing conservatives in their culture) to a more liberal viewpoint approaching that of Americans.
Also you cannot “win” a war on terrorism anymore than you can “win” a war on murder or theft. You can reduce the incidents of the above, but you will never eliminate the possibility. I think that may be what you were getting at by your question.
You can decrease the support for terrorists by understanding the arguments the terrorists use to gain the assent of their supporters. Learn the source of the grievances and address those feelings letting the supporters know that their side can be told and understood without resorting to violence. Some terrorist leaders have ulterior motives and are only using the grievances of their supporters as means to gain more power for themselves. Addressing the source of the problems removes from the terrorists their greatest recruitment tool. Without the support of the masses the terrorists are viewed as bullies and villains by the people they claim to be fighting for.
This would be the closest thing to winning the war on terror. But we would need a leader willing to think like this. Willing to use diplomacy over the military option. Our current leader thinks that it is possible to bomb and shoot the masses into submission. This will only strengthen support for the terrorists and drive that support underground where it will be impossible for us to track.
I hope we someday have a leader willing to mount a true War on Terror, but that day for now must remain in our future.
Joe
posted by Joe | 6/16/2006 06:33:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home