The newly declared War On Terrorism

I first wrote "serious drug dealers" but then removed it. I probably should have left it in.


The point about the terrorists not getting rich is not intended to be regarding their ultimate expected rewards; rather, it is about financing continued activities.Also, the fact that the rewards of the drug trade attract people from all walks of life and cultures, whereas the "Paradise reward" for terrorism probably only attracts certain Muslims (and perhaps a very few others).

"Do you think this will be as successful as The War On Drugs? "


Successful?


What do you mean by successful? Do you mean that if we capture and/or execute Bin Laden if he is a perpetrator then I say that's success. If we find quite a few of those that provided aid and comfort to the murderers and take appropriate action aginst them then I call that a success. Your sarcasticly posed question intimates that we should do nothing. Maybe that's how you measure your successes by thinking instead of acting. I don't and I am willing to give my government the support it needs to try, at least try, to be successful.


Vince

...

No, terrorists don't usually get rich, but they do seem extremely highly motivated to do what they do.


On the issue of the conflict between strict Islam/interpretation of the Koran and our Western lifestyle: Would these terrorists still wage their jihad on the U.S. if our own

lifestyle here, in our own country, were the only issue? I don't know.

But I'm guessing they wouldn't. As I understand it, based

in part on what I heard Bin Laden say in an old interview (but I am

certainly very under-informed and may be very wrong), their primary

complaints center on Israel/Palestine, our support of and military presence in various

Middle Eastern countries, and, I'm sure, such related things as our

sanctions against Iraq. But I'm really pretty under-informed here.


On the question of whether the U.S. is today engaged in anything which deserves much criticism: Let me first say that I agree with your basic view that we did not *cause* terrorism, but from what I understand we are engaged in some things, things that go underreported, which most of us would deplore if we really knew about them. Some of these would be among the complaints of these terrorists - I think. The sanctions against Iraq, as a result of which I hear assertions that countless civilians are suffering terribly, might be one. Again, I'm not well informed on this, but here's a quote from Amnesty International, from the mid '90s, which I saw in an article in my searching the Net for info on this stuff:


"Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman, or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or 'disappeared', at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not,the United States shares the blame."


I agree of course that other countries have are vulnerable to even more criticism for their policies, many *much* more so.


I don't know if you can negotiate with terrorists or not. In some cases I doubt you can. But I would think it would vary.


I'm hoping to write a post pretty soon with a lot of questions on these issues. But in a nutshell I feel compelled to pursue two thoughts right now:


1) The practical issue: The U.S. appears to be rushing pretty quickly into something which could so easily turn out to be very regrettable, and ultimately quite hellish. We may even be playing into these guys' hands, as they had to know there was a good chance we'd react just as we are, and may have been trying to provoke just that. As powerful and well equipped as we are, I'm not at all comfortable about where we may be heading in fighting these guys in Afghanistan. Also, it's got to be basically impossible to predict what sort of sequences of political reactions our actions will cause. Chaos theory comes to mind. Scary.


2) The broader moral issue: I was a kid in grade school during the bulk of the Viet Nam war. Then and for most of my life since, I've heard lots of thinking educated folks express sympathy with the very simple idea that humankind ought to strive to find alternatives to war. Now, I know this probably comes off as naive, but why cannot this be a time to try something historically different, to try a nonviolent approach to a problem the response to which would typically and historically be war?

",..why cannot this be a time to try something historically different, to try a nonviolent approach to a problem the response to which would typically and historically be war?"


That would be an absolute breath of fresh air, well put.

I agree that the U.S. should weigh options carefully and not rush into anything prematurely.


I think a possible solution for the Palestinian problem should be worked on--very seriously. Almost surely an ideal solution cannot be reached for this thorny issue, but just maybe a workable solution can be.


I am not sure about the specifics of the sanctions on Iraq--perhaps they should be lifted, I really don't know.


The irreconciliable differences between Western culture and strict Islam, by themselves, perhaps wouldn't cause holy war or terrorism...though I submit that the other root differences and problems don't have to cause terrorism, either.


I don't think we can make the Islamic world entirely happy with us no matter what we do. I think we should work to live in peace and harmony to whatever extent is possible. I think we should also make it clear we won't tolerate terrorist attacks upon us.


What do you think about SammyB's point that Khadafy used to be quite a problem, but he has been awfully quiet since the bombing of his residence? And that Khomeini released the hostages upon Reagan being sworn into office? I doubt these are coincidences. Even terrorist-supporting leaders have some respect for strength and danger.


In sum: Work towards peace, work hard to arrive at solutions to the most pressing problems...but we cannot, IMO, stand by or offer an olive branch to those who attack us so terribly. I really think they need to be eliminated for two reasons: so they can't do it again, and so other terrorists leaders realize they are jeopardizing their organizations by such actions. They might not care if they, as individuals, die in their holy struggle, but they will care if their organizations are badly hurt. Likewise, heads of state must realize that they can no longer harbor aggressive terrorists, and that the rules have changed...that they will be in jeopardy too if they continue to do so. I really don't think we can allow the continued existence of terrorists and their organizations to the degree that they now flourish. It's not like they are just a political entity with opposing views. They are sworn to destroy us, and that is where we have to draw the line, IMO. They also generally target the weakest, most innocent and defenseless elements of their enemies in an effort to cause terror, and that is morally despicable, IMO.


I think the free world can probably directly eliminate a good portion of the terrorist leaders and their organizations through pinpoint bombing, and that the heads of state who shield the rest of them can be persuaded to give them up. The world doesn't have to stand for terrorism. Even RUSSIA is considering allowing the U.S. to use their territory as a military springboard for an attack against those responsible for the latest atrocity. With almost the whole world against them, terrorists can indeed be overcome. Even IRAN is taking a stand, I believe.


As I posted recently, I do believe that a solution to the Palestinian problem might be reachable if the Palestinians could have a homeland (even if less than ideal in their eyes because it does not include Jerusalem). Israel was created; why not create a Palestinian state now, too? Land could be purchased from the nearest neighbors(s), perhaps, with U.N. funds.

In high school I was completely opposed to war of any kind.


Pressure on heads of state to turn over terrorists may actually work--even the council of clerics in Afghanistan is now telling bin-Laden to leave. The U.S. may not have to resort to force.


I like the idea of dialogue instead of war, very much. I just happen to think the U.S. has to draw the line when we are brutally attacked, both for immediate reasons and for future reasons.


In poker you cannot become known as a folder or your opponents will be forever taking shots at you. Likewise, for the sake of "future hands", we cannot allow this brutal attack to be without repercussions for those responsible.

"What do you think about SammyB's point that Khadafy used to be quite a problem, but he has been awfully quiet since the bombing of his residence?"


Which killed his 15-month-old daughter. The bombing was in purported retaliation for Libya's responsibility for the bombing, nine days prior, of the La Belle discotheque in West Berlin. The U.S. produced no evidence linking Libya to the crime, and no evidence to my knowledge has ever surfaced. German authorities investigating the crime resolutely denied a Libyan connection. As Boris indicates in a post above, the consensus is that Syrian-based terrorist were responsible, but that Libya was targeted because of it's relative defenselessness and unimportance to U.S. diplomacy. These facts are consistent with the widely-publicized disclosures of a CIA domestic "disinformation" campaign against Libya.


There's no question, however, that Libya sheltered and supported terrorists, as has the United States. According to the CIA's World Factbook 2001, however, "Libyan support for terrorism decreased after UN sanctions were imposed in 1992." The UN sanctions have since been lifted following the handing over of the Lockerbie bombing suspects.[1]


Libya therefore doesn't appear to be a good example of the efficacy of force to combat terrorism as opposed to diplomacy and non-violent coercion.


"And that Khomeini released the hostages upon Reagan being sworn into office?"


As for Reagan and the Iranian hostage crisis, you might want to punch "October Surprise" into a search engine for some interesting views. Even if that particular theory isn't correct, the fact remains that the hostages were only released after extensive negotiations concerning the turnover of Iranian financial assets in the U.S. and U.S. assets in Iran. These negotiations had substantially progressed prior to Reagan's election, and Reagan wasn't about to risk derailing with another bravado act of force.


[1] U.S. sanctions nevertheless remain in effect because, as Sen. Paul Sarbanes pointed out on 7/26/01, "Libya has not fulfilled the requirements to pay compensation to the families of the victims, to accept responsibility for the acts of its intelligence officers and to renounce fully international terrorism." In other words, Libya must be sanctioned for acting like the U.S., which similarly refuses to accept responsibility or pay compensation to the victims of contra terrorists, among others.

There are a lot of tough questions. Mainly, I'd like to see the U.S. keep alive and under discussion some of the options the administration seems largely to be ignoring at this point. When I try to think through some of the things we've discussed in this thread I tend to arrive at certain fundamental logical or philosophical questions. Rather than continue with them right now I want to think about them for at least a few days, after which I hope to post something raising those questions.


In the meantime, I've been collecting a lot of links. Here's one which I've only skimmed, but which looks like it may contain good general info on Middle East issues.


http://www.merip.org/