Origins of Evil

Reading the comments on my post below entitled "The Failure of Success", I realized I need to spend some time talking about the origins of terrorism. Whereas the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history was perpetrated with weapons that could be purchased at Walmart, I think that figuring where terrorists come from is of utmost importance, since they obviously don't need much technical support to cause an awful lot of havoc.

Like scholars from the Middle Ages, many Americans (especially on the right) believe that terrorists spring unbidden and unspawned like mice from piles of dirty rags. In reality, a terrorist is made and not born, and throughout the history of violent resistance movements, there has been a strong correlation between cause and effect. The question in an unthreatened country like Denmark is not "where are there Muslim neighbors?" For like every European country, they have a sizeable Muslim immigrant minority. Rather, the question is, "Who are they pissing off?", and the answer is, "No one".

Everybody likes to say, "You can't negotiate with terrorists". This is largely true, but it is completely misapplied to cases of macro policy. You certainly can negotiate with Arabs and other Muslims, and if your method of negotiating is occupying their homes and bulldozing their fields - a la Israel - you will very quickly end up with some very pissed terrorists, with whom you can no longer negotiate.

The fundamental question here is whether the supply of terrorists is severely limited. Obviously, there are a few leaders like Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi who won't be easily replaced. But they aren't the ones blowing up pipelines in Iraq or airplanes in Russia. The rank-and-file of terrorist organizations consists of expendable, poorly trained civilians who have proven to be eminently replaceable. After three years of fighting the terror networks with everything we can, we're looking at a seemingly greater number of low-level terrorists than ever before. Not only that, but they're operating in areas of much more importance to the U.S. than Afghanistan ever was.

The reality is that our strategies in the War on Terror have led to a swelling of the enemy ranks. This is simply a fact: we've been recruiting troops for the enemy. Every time we bomb or occupy another Muslim village, more young men who would previously have been content to curse the USA from the comfort of their coffeehouses are motivated to apocalyptic action by what they view as a threat to their way of life.

A real war on terror has to stem the supply of terrorists - not simply try kill off the existing supply. If Israel can't "terminate terror" among the 3 or 4 million Palestinians in a 15-year campaign of force and serious in-depth espionage, how does America expect to do so among the 1,000,000,000 Muslims of the whole world?

The reality of our "War on Terror" is that it is a cultural conflict. Led by the neo-conservative movement within the administration, our leaders have come to the conclusion that there exists a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, and only one of us will survive. To do so, they are embarking on what could be a century-long attempt to remake Islamic civilization in the image of the West. Afghanistan and Iraq are entrepots and test cases; if these go well, expect more intervention. This ideology is perhaps the most dangerous thing in global terms since Communism and Colonialism. To what else can we compare an ideology that views the world as us against them, and seeks to completely remake every opposing society? I don't think it will, I don't think it can survive, because Afghanistan and Iraq will fall apart so badly, and this experiment in sudden, externally-driven social revolution will fail as miserably as its predecessors.

So what should we do about terror? How can we appropriately fight a war against an enemy who already has force deployed and ready to deploy against us? By no means am I suggesting that we should try to accommodate the Bin Laden's and Al-Sadr's of the world.

1. We need to keep up the high-level war, choking off funds and arresting leaders. This won't prevent hostage situations or pipeline bombings, but it has and will prevent catastrophic action or serious weapons purchases. This has been successful, and will be much more so if we can convince places like Indonesia and Syria that we're acting in their best interest. (Syria, among others, has been fighting its own war on terror for longer than we have).

2. Qualify our support - both moral and financial - for Israel. We give them $3 billion a year, and they better be using that to help America, not hurt us. We need to suspend payments until they tear down that wall and rebuild it on their own border, where it can protect both them and us. We can guarantee their safety forever if only they'll act defensively and not aggressively.

3. Create positive connections - in government, business, academia, tourism, and personally - with the countries where we most fear terrorism. A cooperative, non-threatening America is a lot less of a problem for them, and personal connections are one of the best ways to debunk stereotypes and fear-mongering.

4. Protect what's within our borders. We need to make it clear that we believe that each state has the right and responsibility to protect everything within it. We've done a decent job of this, I think, and we need to continue to do so.