Very serious question: what does "defeating terrorism" look like?

[readmoreoften]

Obama talked to Germans about Europe and the US working together to defeat terrorism. Obama's comment has made many feel inspired--probably more because of the "working together" part than the "defeating terrorism" part. (For example when McCain talks about multilateral efforts against terrorism, I want to crawl under my bed.) But what does this end product of "terrorism defeated" look like?

So-called "terrorism" has increased in proportion to global mobility and access to the advanced weapons produced by the military industrial complex. Local acts of sabotage against imperialist enterprises are as old as industrialization itself. Crews have mutinied, workers have rioted, and poor criminals have rivaled big criminals for millennia. What's the difference?

The difference is that our technological needs have advanced to the point where most Western nations can't survive off their own resources and are at the mercy of the resources of nations the West treats--let's face it--like intellectually and morally inferior subhuman masses who are occupying "our" oil. (Or in the case of Mexico "our" coffee plantations or in the case of Bolivia "our" water.) Suffice it to say "the West" really means global capital or "the money people" no matter where it originates. The money men say that they need access to "our" foreign resources in order to protect "our" way of life. But is democracy a matter of wealth? Are they concerned that we'll be too poor to drive to the ballot box? I don't think so. And it can't be that they're afraid of global economic collapse because, as I've heard over and over, the market is self-correcting

There are two other arguments: one is that religious extremists will take over the world. (Sure, why not, they've already taken over the United States.) But are the religious any more religious than they were 50 or 75 or 150 or 500 years ago? The other is that if "WMDs" get in the wrong hands we're all toast. But whose hands are the "right hands"? The correct answer is "the hands of rational governments" aka "the people who represent those who own the world's resources." The people who own the world's resources are "good" because they will only ever use their weapons against their enemies (enemies being those who still have what "the good" want.) The "good" rich people aren't crazy--they aren't going to blow up their own assets. Only vanquished nations, or nations who are slated to be vanquished, are "bad" or "hostile" because they are bound to get angry that the rich have taken or are going to take their national assets. They are "crazy" because they might blow things up out of resentment. Their citizens are also "bad" maybe even "suspect" because a desperate citizen doesn't have as much to lose as a desperate government and is not as 'rational.'

Then there's the babble about how we're doing it all for "democracy." Iran is an Islamic Republic as is Pakistan and in fact Afghanistan became an Islamic Republic after the Taliban was deposed. And Islamic Republic is when there is a voting system in place and elections but government is guided by Shariah law. Both of these systems are more "democratic" (at least in the sense of electoral democracy) than the monarchies and caliphates that we generally support in the region. If there was, say, a democratic movement in Saudi Arabia I seriously doubt we would support it. In fact, we'd probably call them terrorists--especially if they had any designs on nationalizing oil profits. We have little to no interest in "democracy" in the Middle East. What we really mean by democracy is "the free market." US policy makers on both sides of the aisle don't really give a brown hoot whether or not people in the Middle East get to vote or whether or not they get their heads cut off for belonging to a pro-democracy student group. The point is: brutal monarchy (Saud) or right-wing dictatorship (Uribe, Pinochet) so long as they let the capital flow they are counted as a "democracy." Clearly, we cannot define terrorists as "non-democratic states or individuals."

To sum it up:

"The terrorists" cannot be mere religious fanatics. Why would, starting in the 1990s, "radical" muslims want to take over the world by force?
"The terrorists" cannot be merely against democracy. In fact some of those we call terrorists are actually fighting for democracy.
"The terrorists" cannot destroy the global economy because "the market" is self-correcting.
So "the terrorists" seems to specifically be one thing: a "corporation" of people who are pissed off about something they feel the West stole from them, sometimes backed by an about-to-be-vanquished government (so-called state-sponsored terror).

Terrorism is nothing but a guerrilla strategy used by those who don't own armies against those who do.


So how do you defeat "the terrorists?" The only way to "defeat" terrorism without abandoning the goal of a free-market, Disney-Safe world is to annihilate potential terrorists. The only way to annihilate potential terrorists is to maintain a global police state while beating any oil-bearing Middle Eastern nation not ruled by a monarch into submission. There is no other way. When we talk about fighting "the real war" in Afghanistan what on earth do we mean? Bombing those connected to the Taliban? So do we have a vengeance list of names--then we'll be outta there? Will all the insurgents who take up arms to protect their nation be labeled Taliban or Al Qaeda? Come on, our allies are violent warlord heroin dealers who abduct and rape girls. Then we're going to bomb "suspected Al Qaeda" in Pakistan? Human nature dictates that when we bomb Al Qaeda headquarters in Pakistan, some will believe that we have bombed innocent people and they will be so incensed they will join Al Qaeda. There is no military solution in Iraq? Guess what! There is no military solution in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran. It's like bombing the river to stop a flood.

Rhetoric about "defeating the terrorists" is in fact part of the problem. First of all, many people believe that the neoconservatives and their backers either staged the precipitating event of 9-11 or allowed it to happen in order to form a pretext to invade Iraq and establish a base to "democratize" the Middle East. If either notion is correct, then "terrorism" is something that clearly doesn't require a global police state because it would be no more sinister or common than it was in the 1970s. The fact that the public expects leaders who will "defeat the terrorists" is as big a problem. The fact that a good 50% (and I think I'm being more than fair) of the public thinks that any working class man in the Middle East who doesn't speak English is a terrorist is an even bigger problem.

The catch-22 is that anyone who attempts to defeat terrorism will invigorate it. Moreover the world cannot attempt to defeat terrorism without everyone (except those who are above the law through wealth and connections) automatically being a terrorist suspect. There is all this talk of "a balance" between personal liberty and international security but this is feel-good nonsense. What does that even mean? Examinations by the TSA in private booths instead of out in the open? Harsher security in airports than in subways? Being permitted up to 3oz. of liquid in a plastic baggie instead of no liquid? They spy on all American citizens, but they're don't really listen to what we say? They promise not to tell our bosses that we're gay or bust us for the marijuana we just said we'd smoked or report our "anti-American" thoughts? The concept of "extremely committing to routing out invisible evil... in a balanced way" is completely baffling. What it seems to mean is: we now interrupt your regularly scheduled liberty to subject you to police state tactics. But don't worry, we're only doing it to save the free world. We don't like this police state any more than you do. Except for those who enjoy the power trip but those persons are (fill in the blank: bad apples, having problems at home, basically good people who were just in a bad mood when they dislocated your shoulder.)

There are only two ways to stop "terrorism": (1) a global police state that becomes stricter with every new attack or "threat" (2) abandoning the goal of a free-market westernized the Middle East and freedom from dependence on oil as well as a free-market westernized Latin America and Africa, reparations to Iraq, and the opening of dialogue and exchange. Hell, maybe even funding those pro-democracy student groups in allied nations.

I know that we will not take route #2. So what does "defeating terrorism" look like to you?

[WCGreen]

1. Terrorism has always been used by those in power to scare the

average folks into granting them more power...

[readmoreoften]

2. I'd say defeating terrorism would then consist of not allowing oneself to be scared

but being unafraid of terrorists doesn't stop a police state. The police will just think you're delusional. Hmmm.

[WCGreen]

4. Pretty much...

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The programs of Hitler and the Third Reich were claimed to have been based on

fighting their version of terrorism.

Before the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, their Brownshirts were starting violent street fights with communists, socialists, and social democrats, and when they came to power, they promised to end the violence. When the Reichstag caught fire (think of the Capitol Building) and burned to the ground, they blamed communists wholesale, and next thing you know, Dachau was created for prisoners. Then other "terrorists" were added to their list to be sequestered from the general population, then quarantined, then removed: intellectuals, trade unionists, Jews, religist leaders who were converted to the Nazi Church, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, the mentally ill, gays, anyone who even expressed a doubt about the Fuhrer, etc. Your neighbor could have a problem with you, alert the neighborhood Gautleiter, call you a terrorist, and that was enough.

So, what would it look like, to have a government perpetually in the throes of "defeating terrorism"? Lemme put it to you this way. It might be so dragonian that when you look back on this date, you'll be referring to it as the "good ole days".

[shadowknows69]

5. It means

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

[SpiralHawk]

6. "We have always been at war with terra." - Big BushCo

War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
Big BushCo loves you.

[shadowknows69]

7. Check the post above Spiralhawk

Great minds eh?

[semillama]

8. I'm betting that defeating terrorism might look a lot like

defeating global poverty. just a thought.

[readmoreoften]

11. Hmmmm

"defeating global poverty"=we cause poverty and then fund non-profits to "end poverty" thus giving jobs to wealthy idealists who might really cause problems if they weren't given busy work.

[treestar]

9. It's impossible. We may as well try to defeat war

or declare war on war, or war on murder, or war on kidnapping.

It's silly. It's an excuse for perpetual war dreamed up by those who make their living off of war materials.

[The2ndWheel]

10. I'd say your #1 is a pretty good bet

If the energy is cheap enough to do it. It's always been about control.