Ritual Reality

Some Immodest Proposals

October 27, 2004

Taking a sensible look at the issue of international terrorism was difficult enough before the attacks of September 11, 2001. What little detailed information existed regarding, say, Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah, was rarely discussed in the mass mainstream media and probably not well understood by many Americans. Our own government maintained a rapt sense of ambivalence, bordering on denial, about its own involvement with terrorist groups or the states that sponsored them. The Reagan Administration vowed America would never deal with terrorists or their sponsors. But as the Iran-Contra fiasco made abundantly clear that vow didn't apply where particular foreign policy goals were at stake. There certainly was very little discussion about the conditions and pressures that give rise to terrorist groups except in a few well-known conflicst such as Northern Ireland, Basque Spain, or Israel. Even those discussions were usually highly-sanitized for mass media consumption.

A simplistic but useful rule of thumb is that terrorism breeds in "failed states." This is certainly true in the case of Afghanistan where the ruling Taliban regime and their al Qaeda allies swept through a country shattered by 30 years of civil war. That dynamic is magnified by the porous, virtually lawless border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where anti-U.S. sentiment is at a fever pitch along with zealous support of al Qaeda. The ongoing civil war between Israel and the Palestinians is another clear example of terrorism and oppression feeding off each other in the occupied terroritories, which are little more than slums with a flag and a fractured, murderous ruling party. While Americans are caught up in post-9-11 jingoism, and most lack basic understanding of terrorism's causes, there is even less understanding of the ways in which terrorists organize their human and financial resources, let alone how they carry out operations. Indeed, it is alarmingly clear that most federal agencies had never explored these aspects of the crisis before 9-11 and have been missing much of the picture since. While understanding the "failed state" theory is critical, there also exist areas where terrorists move freely, launder money, buy arms, gather intelligence and broker such things as false identity papers. Douglas Farah, a Washington Post reporter, investigated al Qaeda's aggressive efforts to secure untraceable supplies of raw diamonds from West Africa. He subsequently wrote a book, Blood From Stones, which is a chilling in-depth look at how easily al Qaeda operatives moved in the region, laundering cash with diamond purchases and brokering huge arms deals. The book cites a report that Robert Cooper produced for Britain's Foreign Policy Centre that defines "soft states" as nations or regions:

[where] chaos is the norm and war is a way of life. Insofar as there is a government, it operates in a way similar to an organized crime syndicate. The pre-modern state may be too weak even to secure its home territory, let alone pose a threat internationally, but it can provie a base for non state actors who may represent a danger to the postmodern world... notabley drug, crime and terrorist syndicates.

-- "Reordering the World: Post-Modern States", Foreign Policy Centre, London, April 2002

These regions are not in-and-of themselves the breeding grounds for terrorists of any particular strain. In the case of Liberia and Sierra Leone, where Farah first investigated the diamond trade, the rebel groups in power certainly comprised guerillas and terrorists, but were not necessarily anti-American or anti-Western. What Cooper's definition describes, however, are regions where groups such as al Qaeda carry out critical aspects of their global operations without detection.

This mess is complicated by American foreign policy initiatives past and present, most largely unknown or unexamined by the American public, which result in long-held feelings of animosity towards the USA in numerous regions. Even obstensible allies, such as Pakistan, have encouraged and abetted radical terrorist groups for their own ends, despite knowledge of these groups rabid anti-American ideologies.

In our view, the Bush Administration has done nothing but enflame such sentiments and, even worse, made the world murkier and less secure. President Bush spouts folksy assertions like "the world is a dangerous place," intimating that he and his advisors are the only ones qualified to understand the dangers, and they move lockstep into one self-fulfilling prophecy after another. The facts would indicate that national security--preparation for any and all threats--and the war on terrorism are two distinct things. National secrurity addresses real issues of vulnerability that any enemy could exploit. The war on terrorism, as it is being prosecuted, singles out one vector of terrorist ideology, al Qaeda. Moreover, the ill-advised invasion of Iraq has clearly hamstrung every other aspect of America's security interests and damaged, if not permanently crippled America's credibility in the eyes of the world.

So how does America act to affect positive changes in the future? The first step is to remove Bush and his cabal of radical empire-builders from power on November 2nd. But then the real challenges begin.

Americans have to face facts: American foreign policy, however it is intended or interpreted, really does cause problems for people in other places. In many cases these people feel real pressure and real fear and many don't believe America has even the slightest interest in their plight unless their plight directly relates to strategic or ecomonic interests. In extreme cases, such as Israel or Chile, ordinary people are or have been oppressed in the very name of American interests. All but the most xenophobic outlook has to accept that terrorism is going to occur when a great power flexes and causes suffering.

America has to open the books: The American establishment has to come clean on foreign policy and clandestine intrigues designed to influence, promote, or affect change in other countries. In order for this to be even marginally effective, the government would have to simply cough up the goods. Obviously, current operations and resources could be potentially compromised so our hopes for complete transparency are, at best, an utter pipe dream. But we feel it is crucial for America to do more than simply gloss over things and hope some vague talk about "winning hearts and minds" actually convinces people whose lives are affected on every level by American power.

If these items sound something like a 12 Step program for recovering superpowers, bear with us; we're just getting down to nuts and bolts.

America should be part of the World's Police, not the World's Lone Secret Police: America should roll back its global military presence in nothing short of drastic terms. Since it is highly unlikely that America's military and political elite would agree to complete withdrawal--in fact, America couldn't and shouldn't completely dismantle its global military network--we propose that America retain control of the military installations it outright owns and leave the operations personnel in place. Meanwhile, we propose America reduce all standing overseas combat and logistics forces by 60% and replace those troops with true multinational forces, chartered by the United Nations, and charged with regional directives for peacekeeping and security for humanitarian relief and reform agencies.

At first, these multinational forces could be structured around the UN Security Council, with equal representation for permanent and rotating members, and would require full cooperation in all areas. (We can hear the War Pigs squealing and wallowing in a mad frenzy.) While America enjoys the advantages of a global military presence it is time to put its resources to use for things other than strictly promoting strategic and economic goals. Anyone who believes that our presence in the Middle East, and especially the Persian Gulf, is not inexorably bound to energy policy is as high as a purple kite with nitrous oxide stabilizing jets.

America needs to drive world aid efforts, not just support them: With the vast economic and technological resources at its command, America has the capacity to engergize relief efforts like no other nation. We propose a further 10% reduction in America's combat forces, realigned and retrofitted to create a fleet for global disaster, hunger, and ecological relief and recovery efforts, with the corresponding funds from military operations applied on a 1-1 basis. Membership in the fleet would be open to all Americans and citizens of foreign countries that sign a charter agree to provide support materiel and funds. Americans could use their time as part of a National Service Charter and all member nations should agree to honor time in the with an exchange student-type program in their education systems. In other words, two years in this service might translate to a year of study in a participating country.

The key is for Americans to realize that they own these vast and powerful resources. By making such radical proposals we open ourselves up to legitimate criticism. But we're asking that people start thinking in real terms about alternatives. Compare the cost of military deployment with the cost of, say, disaster relief operations and then contemplate and compare the long term results and benefits of both. It's time to start thinking about the image we project to the world and how it must appear when so much wealth is spent on zero sum machinations and weapons. The average cruise missile has a better working knowledge of geography than most American teenagers, yet the money required to build, deploy and launch a single Tomahawk could buy a dozen college educations. Compare, contrast, decide. Vote.