Posted on 08/13/2006 7:57:12 AM PDT by dirtboy
The "war on terror" has always been a misnomer. It assumes that the terrorist threat can somehow be "eradicated" through the mechanism of war - through military action using bombs, guns and bullets. War may be the short-term answer to an immediate threat; it is not the answer to the long-term crises.
Any resolution with the Middle East must begin with two steps - and the present administration has failed to make either one.
The first is to ask ourselves a tough question: What use are our policies in the Arab world if they engender hostility, anger and a sense that the United States cares little for Arab populations?
It didn't have to be this way. Arab and Muslim animosity toward us was not preordained - indeed, just the opposite. Post-9/11, sympathy around the Arab world for the United States was exceptionally high. The war in Afghanistan was generally supported; even reaction to the war in Iraq could have been different, given the Middle East's concerns about Saddam Hussein.
Yet we keep believing - in Iraq, and possibly now in Lebanon - that the Arab world understands only force and power, as if the Arab world is a beta dog, needing the alpha United States to put it in its place. The administration has insisted on bringing "democracy" - through force - to Iraq and unconditionally supporting Israel in its present battles in Lebanon. Yet until the last few weeks, it was difficult to imagine that Arab attitudes toward the United States could have gotten any worse. A Pew Global Attitudes Survey remarked in 2003 that "the bottom has fallen out of Arab and Muslim support for the United States." Since the Israel-Hezbollah war began this summer, such support has reached even lower lows.
Solving the tensions between the United States and Arab states requires real changes in policy, whether it be in Iraq or in the Palestinian crises. To be sure, this administration has shown no inclination to change. "Stay the course" is not simply a cliché; it's a way of being.
So, since America's policies are not likely to alter in the foreseeable future, we are driven to a second approach: making terrorism less attractive to those who might otherwise be drawn to it. How can we negotiate our way through Mideast tensions without creating a new generation of terrorists who believe that the only way to achieve change is through violence?
Let's be clear here. Terrorists have always existed; they will always exist. "Eradicating" terrorism from the world is a fool's errand. The notion, however, of making terrorism - the targeting of civilian populations for political purposes - less attractive to men and women who disagree with our policies is not.
Assume that there is a small core of people committed to terrorism who will never be swayed by any discussion or reconciliation. Let's put Osama bin Laden in that camp. Around that core is a bigger circle of people sympathetic to the same causes - the end of our presence in the Arab world, the eradication of Israel, etc. - but who presently show no propensity toward martyrdom. How can we assist in ensuring that the outer group, however large, doesn't join the ranks of the inner circle?
In several ways. First, recognize that "public diplomacy," as understood by this administration, is simply not enough. Sooner or later, the United States must say something, do something, directly to and for the Arab states. That something will be different from, and more substantial than, what it has been doing. The kind of public diplomacy we've seen is only putting bad policies in better packaging. Engaging the Arab world means more than putting Karen Hughes on Al-Jazeera. The Arab populations can see right through that.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to Lebanon, during which she basically said, "Sorry this is happening, but got to go," and President Bush's failure to condemn - even adequately grieve over - the mistake of the bombings in Qana don't sit well. These were both missed opportunities. Slights and non-apologies don't improve anything; they actually help radicalize otherwise non-radical elements. The turn of events in Lebanon is telling in this regard: Lebanese Christians and Arab Sunni Muslims everywhere now support a Shia terrorist organization, Hezbollah, in ways never seen before.
This administration has insisted on dividing the world into "us" and "them." And that has hurt. Refusing to speak to Syria during this present crisis is not the way a superpower ought to engage the world. (Neither is refusing direct talks with North Korea about nuclear activities.) It not only confirms Syria's alienation from us - it encourages alienation among millions in other countries. It has achieved very little and has harmed very much.
Our policies should be a way of saying directly to and for the Arab states, "We understand your concerns and interests - and here's what we are willing to do to show that we understand." No longer can a U.S. administration see its policies primarily as forms of local politics - as being a constant play for party power and votes. Continuing with Guantánamo Bay, or undermining restrictions on the use of torture of detainees, can't be justified by either partisan advantage or presidential prerogative. These are the very policies that have led people around the world to see Bush's vaunted stay-the-course consistency as unapologetic, ignorant belligerence. We are perceived to have unclean hands. This is why many pro-democracy Iranian intellectuals refused American funding to support their efforts.
We must begin to recognize, as my colleague Jessica Stern has written, that "Jihad has become a global fad, rather like gangsta rap." And fads come and go. That's right: There is no one Arab or Muslim worldview. The long-term effort against radicalizing an entire generation begins with understanding that the Arab world is complex. Engaging it will mean saying different things to different constituencies with different outlooks.
In fact, Arab public opinion - the opinion heard by young men in the Arab world - is mature and questioning. Forces are at work today that will accelerate change in that world. Satellite television, competing cable networks, and the Internet and blogosphere have altered the nature of Arab discourse. That discourse is beholden to no single government apparatus, no mouthpiece, no conventional wisdom. And there are voices in that discourse that ought to be encouraged and engaged, voices that see the turn of events in the Arab world as ultimately bad for their own civilization. We need to look for those voices, listen, and work with them.
We ought to do better to engage journalists as well as politicians, engage the public officials and the intellectuals in real - not canned or condescending - discussion about the nature of our activities, whether they agree or not. And we can show, through real engagement with both our allies and foes, that debate (not military action) is the only appropriate forum for this discussion.
De-radicalizing a generation is not a job we can do alone, and it's not a job we can finish. (That's partly because our policies have helped radicalize people.) But we need to stop doing so much to hinder it. The world does not want to look like us, necessarily, and we ought not to require it as a condition for working to minimize a threat we all will face for some time.
Juliette Kayyem keeps the conversation going in an online Q&A at http://go.philly.com/kayyem2
For Juliette Kayyem's blog, see http://go.philly.com/kayyem
For the Public Diplomacy Web site, by
the United States Information Agency Alumni Association, see http://www.publicdiplomacy.org
For Democracy Arsenal, a Web site by the Security and Peace Initiative, see http://www.democracyarsenal.org
Gawd, these idiots make my head want to implode.
By the way, they were kind enough to provide us some links. I think we should take them up on the invite.
What? Dhimmitude? No Thanks.
Wow! What a country!
"After Alfred had subdued, and had settled or expelled the Danes, he found the kingdom in the most wretched condition; desolated by the ravages of those barbarians, and thrown into disorders, which were calculated to perpetuate its misery. Though the great armies of the Danes were broken, the country was full of straggling troops of that nation, who, being accustomed to live by plunder, were become incapable of industry, and who, from the natural ferocity of their manners, indulged themselves in committing violence, even beyond what was requisite to supply their necessities. The English themselves, reduced to the most extreme indigence by these continued depredations, had shaken off all bands of government; and those who had been plundered today, betook themselves next day to a like disorderly life, and, from despair, joined the robbers in pillaging and ruining their fellow-citizens. These were the evils for which it was necessary that the vigilance and activity of Alfred should provide a remedy. "
" That he might render the execution of justice strict and regular; he divided all England into counties; these counties he subdivided into hundreds; and, the hundreds into tithings. Every householder was answerable for the behaviour of his family and slaves, and even of his guests, if they lived above three days in his house. Ten neighbouring householders were formed into one corporation, who, under the name of a tithing, decennary, or fribourg, were answerable for each other's conduct, and over whom one person, called a tithingman, headbourg, or borsholder, was appointed to preside. Every man was punished as an outlaw who did not register himself in some tithing. And no man could change his habitation, without a warrant or certificate from the borsholder of the tithing to which he formerly belonged. "
" When any person in any tithing or decennary was guilty of a crime, the borsholder was summoned to answer for him; and if he were not willing to be surety for his appearance, and his clearing himself, the criminal was committed to prison, and there detained till his trial. If he fled, either before or after finding sureties, the borsholder and decennary became liable to inquiry, and were exposed to the penalties of law. Thirty-one days were allowed them for producing the criminal; and if that time elapsed without their being able to find him, the borsholder, with two other members of the decennary, was obliged to appear, and, together with three chief members of the three neighbouring decennaries, (making twelve in all,) to swear that his decennary was free from all privity both of the crime committed, and of the escape of the criminal. If the borsholder could not find such a number to answer for their innocence, the decennary was compelled by fine to make satisfaction to the king, according to the degree of the offence . By this institution, every man was obliged from his own interest to keep a watchful eye over the conduct of his neighbours; and was in a manner surety for the behaviour of those who were placed under the division to which he belonged: whence these decennaries received the name of frank-pledges. "
" Such a regular distribution of the people, with such a strict confinement in their habitation, may not be necessary in times when men are more inured to obedience and justice; and it might perhaps be regarded as destructive of liberty and commerce in a polished state; but it was well calculated to reduce that fierce and licentious people under the salutary restraint of law and government. But Alfred took care to temper these rigours by other institutions favourable to the freedom of the citizens; and nothing could be more popular and liberal than his plan for the administration of justice. The borsholder summoned together his whole decennary to assist him in deciding any lesser difference which occurred among the members of this small community. In affairs of greater moment, in appeals from the decennary, or in controversies arising between members of different decennaries, the cause was brought before the hundred, which consisted of ten decennaries, or a hundred families of freemen, and which was regularly assembled once in four weeks for the deciding of causes . Their method of decision deserves to be noted, as being the origin of juries; an institution admirable in itself, and the best calculated for the preservation of liberty and the administration of justice that ever was devised by the wit of man. Twelve freeholders were chosen, who, having sworn, together with the hundreder, or presiding magistrate of that division, to administer impartial justice , proceeded to the examination of that cause which was submitted to their jurisdiction. And beside these monthly meetings of the hundred, there was an annual meeting, appointed for a more general inspection of the police of the district; for the inquiry into crimes, the correction of abuses in magistrates, and the obliging of every person to show the decennary in which he was registered. The people, in imitation of their ancestors, the ancient Germans, assembled there in arms; whence a hundred was sometimes called a wapentake, and its court served both for the support of military discipline, and for the administration of civil justice. "
" The next superior court to that of the hundred was the county-court, which met twice a year, after Michaelmas and Easter, and consisted of the freeholders of the county, who possessed an equal vote in the decision of causes. The bishop presided in this court, together with the alderman; and the proper object of the court was the receiving of appeals from the hundreds and decennaries, and the deciding of such controversies as arose between men of different hundreds. Formerly, the alderman possessed both the civil and military authority; but Alfred, sensible that this conjunction of powers rendered the nobility dangerous and independent, appointed also a sheriff in each county, who enjoyed a co-ordinate authority with the former in the judicial function . His office also empowered him to guard the rights of the crown in the county, and to levy the fines imposed; which in that age formed no contemptible part of the public revenue.
There lay an appeal, in default of justice, from all these courts to the king himself in council; and as the people, sensible of the equity and great talents of Alfred, placed their chief confidence in him, he was soon overwhelmed with appeals from all parts of England. He was indefatigable in the despatch of these causes ; but finding that his time must be entirely engrossed by this branch of duty, he resolved to obviate the inconvenience, by correcting the ignorance or corruption of the inferior magistrates, from which it arose . He took care to have his nobility instructed in letters and the laws . He chose the earls and sheriffs from among the men most celebrated for probity and knowledge: he punished severely all malversation in office : and he removed all the earls, whom he found unequal to the trust ; allowing only some of the more elderly to serve by a deputy, till their death should make room for more worthy successors. "
" The better to guide the magistrates in the administration of justice, Alfred framed a body of laws; which, though now lost, served long as the basis of English jurisprudence, and is generally deemed the origin of what is denominated the COMMON LAW. He appointed regular meetings of the states of England twice a year in London ; a city which he himself had repaired and beautified, and which he thus rendered the capital of the kingdom. The similarity of these institutions to the customs of the ancient Germans, to the practice of the other northern conquerors, and to the Saxon laws during the Heptarchy, prevents us from regarding Alfred as the sole author of this plan of government; and leads us rather to think, that, like a wise man, he contented himself with reforming, extending, and executing the institutions which he found previously established. But, on the whole, such success attended his legislation, that every thing bore suddenly a new face in England: robberies and iniquities of all kinds were repressed by the punishment or reformation of the criminals : and so exact was the general police, that Alfred, it is said, hung up, by way of bravado, golden bracelets near the highways; and no man dared to touch them . Yet, amidst these rigours of justice, this great prince preserved the most sacred regard to the liberty of his people; and it is a memorable sentiment preserved in his will, That it was just the English should for ever remain as free as their own thoughts."
Souce: Hume's History of England
The “War on Terrorism” is a badly used political/news hawk buzz word.
Reality check - the war on terrorism began back in 1970 at the Olympic Games an organized assassination carried out by a non-nation state..
It continued through the 1970’s with assassinations, aircraft hijackings, and other peace loving acts carried out by a non-nation state supported by major and minor nation states advancing theirown agenda in secret.
The last quarter century hasn’t changed the path charted in the 60’s and 70’s.
The war is NOT being fought on our side - at least its not being fought with the intention of winning. It is begin fought as a holding action. Why?
It is a conditioned response that developed in the 60’s and 70’s when the other side of the “War on Terrorism” was the Soviet Union. These wars of “National Liberation” were fought has a holding action so the chances of a nuclear war were kept very low. No sense of betting the house and family in a penny-ante poker game.
Well, the world has changed and our leadership theory hasn’t. The other side - the Islamic side - have convinced themselves that God was pre-forgiven them for all sins because they are doing “God’s work”.
The poker game isn’t penny-ante any more. It is now a game of "all-in-all-the-time ("We have to defeat every terrorist act - they just have to be successful once" - sound familar to anyone?). Too bad our political leaders don’t understand this and are unwilling to clearly articulate this to the sheeple.
<sigh>
If the muslims would lay down their arms, there would be peace. It ain't gonna happen.
If the civilized (i.e. non-muslim) world were to lay down their arms, their would be genocide.
aaaaaggghh.
Make that "THERE would be".
I hate that mistake. Jumps right off the page.
bump
You make a lot more sense than the idiot who wrote this - who, by the way, is a Harvard professor and terrorism expert for MS-NBC. I think "appeasement expert" would be a better description.
Oh, and she's Arab-American as well. What a surprise that she prefers the Arab victimhood viewpoint to an American or Israeli viewpoint.
Take a look at the abbreviated list below, the dates and the countries and tell me how George Bush and the war in Iraq are responsible for terrorism today. The next time a delusional Democrat tells you it’s Bush’s fault, stick this list…in their face.
1972 Munich Olympics Sep. 5, 1972
1976 Entebbe Hostage Crisis, Uganda, June 27, 1976
1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979 444 days
1979 Grand Mosque Seizure, Mecca, Nov. 20, 1979
1981 Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct. 6, 1981
1982 Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept. 14, 1982
1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983
1983 Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, 242 Americans killed, Oct. 23, 1983
1984 Hezbollah Restaurant Bombing, Spain, 18 G.I.s killed, April 12, 1984
1985 Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov. 23, 1985
1985 Rome Airport Murders, Dec. 27, 1985
1985 TWA Flight 847 Hijacked, U.S. Navy diver murdered
1985 Achille Lauro Hijacking, Oct. 7, 1985
1986 Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986
1988 Pan Am 747 Flight 103 Bombing, Lockerbie, England, 270 Murdered – 189 Americans, Dec. 21, 1988
1988 Berlin Disco Bombing, Dec. 21, 1988
1992 Bombing in Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 1992
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush (41), April 14, 1993
1993 First World Trade Center Bombing, 7 killed, hundreds injured, Feb. 26, 1993
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec. 24, 1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar. 8, 1995
1995 Military Installation Attack, Nov. 13, 1995
1996 Khobar Towers Attack, Saudi Arabia, 19 G.I.s killed, June 25, 1996
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, 2 killed, Dec. 3, 1996
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy Bombing, 100s murdered, Aug 7, 1998
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy Bombing, 100s murdered, Aug. 7. 1998
1999 Plot To Blow Up Space Needle and Disneyland Thwarted
2000 USS Cole Bombing, 17 U.S. sailors killed, Oct. 12, 2000
2000-2003 Intifada Against Israel - 100's dead and injured
2000 Manila Bombing, Dec. 30, 2000
2001 World Trade Center Attacked, 2800+ Americans murdered, Sept. 11, 2001
2001 Flight 93, 44 murdered, Sept. 11, 2001
2001 Pentagon Attacked, 180+ murdered, Sept. 11, 2001
2002 El Al Attack Los Angeles LAX, 3 killed, July 4, 2002
2002 Bali Bombing, 202 dead, 300 injured, Oct. 12, 2002
2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked
2002 Russian Theater Attacked, 100+ dead
2002 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, 9 Americans killed, March 20, 2002
2002 Nigerian Riots Against Miss World Pageant, 215 dead, hundreds injured, Nov. 2002
2003 Hotel bombing In Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured, Aug. 5, 2003
2003 Russian Concert Bombing, 14 killed, July 5, 2003
2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA
2004 Beslan School Children, 331 killed – many children, Sept. 3, 2004
An expanded list can be found at http://www.milnet.com/terrchrn.htm
P.S. Who killed Bobby Kennedy? Who tried to kill the pope? Muslims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.