9 August 2004 - Monday
Them
I was listening to the news on Saturday. A journalist filed a report from a town in Florida. She interviewed groups of citizens, asking their political views. Some were lifelong party members, both Democrat and Republican; others were independent; others had recently crossed the lines. Several spoke with heavy southern accents (I visualized large belt buckles).
One man caught my attention. He was a Bush supporter.
"These people don't understand anything but force," he said. He was referring to his reasons for supporting the president's foreign policy. "We need to send a message that for every one of ours they kill, we're going to kill 85 of theirs."
My first reaction: Who are "they"?
He never explained his pronoun. Earlier, the reporter had been asking about Iraq, so my immediate impression was that this gentleman was also discussing the invasion of that country. It is possible that he was not. Even if he was not, however, his pronouncement causes me concern.
A suspicious liberal (or sensitive conservative) would smell something of race in his speech. "These people" is at best a term of generalization. If he was indeed refering to Iraq, then I suspect that he meant the term to apply to Muslims or Arabs in general. I say this because Iraq has not attacked the United States; how could America retaliate 85-fold against that nation? Even had Iraq attacked the United States, such numbers would represent revenge, not regime change.
Perhaps the context of the report betrayed this man, however. Perhaps he was speaking specifically of al Qaeda and similar groups (maybe even groups now operating in Iraq), advocating only that America exact justice from those who actively conspire against us. If this is true, however, he is guilty of very poor reasoning. It would be absurd to speak of killing 85 agents of al Qaeda for every American killed. All available members of terrorist groups should be brought to justice -- either killed or otherwise neutralized and punished -- no matter how many Americans have been killed.
So at best this man is guilty of a thirst for revenge. I suspect him of worse because of his poor choice of terms and his failure to make any distinctions between different sorts of enemies.
There is another error in his speech. It is an error commonly made by conservatives where I live. "These people don't understand anything but force." It is such an outrageously false statement that every terrorist attack proves it false. Whether "these people" comprises Muslims, Arabs, or only members of al Qaeda, the sentiment cannot be sustained. It has some limited validity when used of petty despots, but even they often thrive in a condition of weakness, adjusting to ideology and international politics to achieve their ends.
If members of al Qaeda understood nothing but force, they would have never have organized in the first place. Their movement was born in military and political disadvantage, and their methods are tailored for fighting an enemy that is many times more powerful. The concept behind "asymmetric warfare," as it is sometimes called, is that conventional military superiority is not the only way to win in a struggle. If al Qaeda thought it had to defeat the US armed forces, in any traditional sense of the term, it would have surrendered long ago. Additionally, the popularity of suicide missions indicates that brute force may be virtually impotent against some ideologies. How does one apply force to a movement of people for whom battlefield victory means dying?
When this man says "they only understand force," of course, he means that "they" only give in to force. The problem is that terrorists do not give in to force at all.
| Posted by Wilson at 20:00 Central | TrackBack| Report submitted to the Power Desk
I never heard anything in quite those terms until I arrived in East Texas. I have seen ignorance take many other forms elsewhere, however.
The thoughts of Wilson on 10 August 2004 - 21:10 Central+ + + + +
A relative of mine once said "the best policy for the conflict in the middle east is to nuke them all." Frightening, no?
The thoughts of Rachel on 10 August 2004 - 23:07 Central+ + + + +
The problem is that terrorists do not give in to force at all.
I was tracking right along with you until this statement. I believe the point of the clumsy construct "terrorists only understand force" is rather "terrorists only respect force". In other words, they don't respect talk, weakness, appeasement, etc. We could wrangle about that, I'm sure, but we don't have to - I am mainly just confused by this last statement. Terrorists don't give into force at all?
What do terrorists give in to? I'm honestly interested in your ideas - I'm not sure if this is just some form of nihilism (in other words, terrorists will never give in so let's just surrender now) or perhaps I'm just missing your point.
+ + + + +
As I pointed out, the terrorist movements of today seem to have no problems with the idea of suicide attacks. They have picked strategies that do not depend on military superiority of any kind. In a sense, they have adopted a sort of ultraviolent version of the tactics used by nonviolent activists. Reprisals against them do not hurt their cause at all; on the contrary, they probably desire them. Reprisals mean that they are getting attention, and that an us/they mentality is being driven between the two societies.
I'm not sure if this is just some form of nihilism (in other words, terrorists will never give in so let's just surrender now)
Not at all.
During the Cold War, there were some factions in the United States who literally hoped for a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union. They believed that the Soviets understood nothing but force. They were wrong. The Soviets had a broad range of interests, many of which were incompatible with a nuclear war with the USA. While it was necessary for us to leverage force, a hot war would not have been a very good idea for either side.
Interestingly, Communist strength then was similar to radical Islamist strength right now. It was never superior in firepower; its strength was in the sheer mass of its human resources. The huge Red Army precluded an American land attack in Europe; the US had to balance the Red Army with nuclear arms instead. In Vietnam, America dropped frightening amounts of ordnance on the jungles, but we were no match for a large insurgency fighting on its own soil.
In the end, the Soviet Union did not fall because we attacked it. The People's Republic of China did not begin liberalizing its society because we invaded it. Our military strength was necessary, of course, but actually using our arms would have resulted in countless millions of deaths on both sides, and rational people agreed that this would not have been victory at all.
The terrorists we are fighting have political and religious aims. They are not mindless; many are very well educated, and all are dedicated to an idea, not just to the wielding of force. They rely on popular opinion, not military success as we define it. They have never backed down in the face of overwhelming odds, so why does it make sense to continue saying that they respect nothing but overwhelming odds?
It is necessary, of course, to exercise police powers against terrorism. Not because terrorists respect nothing but force, but because that's what police power is there for -- to keep the peace. Meanwhile, it is absolutely essential that we cut off the terrorists from their people. Their people are their only source of strength. They must be renegades, not champions, to their own faith and countrymen. And yes, popular opinion in the Middle East and other Muslim areas is absolutely vital to our cause. The war is a war of ideas, just as the war with communism was.
The thoughts of Wilson on 11 August 2004 - 12:07 Central+ + + + +
Wilson
While I disagree with certain broad-brushes you are using, I think you have a point.
But I think it could also be shown that attacking the terrorist leadership has been quite effective. I agree that killing some poor suicide bomber is not that effective (although the people he/she was planning to kill would probably disagree). But going after the terrorist leadership and the nations that sponsor them is a sound policy. The failure of the infitada (I just spelled that wrong, didn't I) is a case in point. Israel has gone after the leadership of Hamas and others, and the leaders are generally not so keen on dying in a blaze of glory as are their misguided followers.
I don't personnally find the comparison of current terrorist networks and the Soviet Union to be very sound. In fact, I think it's whacked :-) - but to each his own.
+ + + + +
Me again:
"They have never backed down in the face of overwhelming odds"
Eh?
When before have we ever brought anything near overwhelming odds against terrorists? We fought a battle of negotiation, "ideas", measured response, etc. all through the nineties and received the smoking remains of 3,000 countrymen for our reward.
I don't think what we're doing right now has much precedent in history. At all.
It's similar to the predictions before we invaded Afghanistan - people looked at the Soviet Union's sad ten year war and said there was no way we'd defeat the Taliban.
History has no precedent for what we're doing, as far as I can tell.
The thoughts of Bill on 11 August 2004 - 14:22 Central+ + + + +
We fought a battle of negotiation, "ideas", measured response, etc. all through the nineties and received the smoking remains of 3,000 countrymen for our reward.
You are discussing our dealings with terrorist leadership and organization. I was discussing our dealings with their sympathizers, since that seemed to be the intent of the man I heard on the radio. There is a difference. Remember, I said that if the man in Florida were referring specifically to active members of al Qaeda, then he was incorrect because all of them should be killed, not 85 for one.
Furthermore, I agree with you that we failed to respond properly to Usama bin Laden during the Clinton years. That is irrelevant. We have now toppled two governments in order to control him, and he shows no sign of giving in. How much more force should we apply in order to get him to "respect" us? Will changing ten regimes stop him? Will nuking Saudia Arabia stop him? What will gain his respect? When you say "he respects force," precisely how much force do you mean?
The thoughts of Wilson on 11 August 2004 - 14:39 Central+ + + + +
Oh, I forgot -- Rachel, I've heard that one before. How about the one where genocide is the only solution to the Palestinian question? That was in Sunday school. Heard any other good ones lately?
The thoughts of Wilson on 11 August 2004 - 14:57 Central+ + + + +
I'm still trying to figure out who the "them" is in my relative's statement. Especially considering she's avidly pro-Israel, since she's reading the end times books about events in Israel heralding Christ's soon return. She intends to nuke "them" without nuking "the others" is beyond me.
The thoughts of Rachel on 12 August 2004 - 21:07 Central+ + + + +
How much more force should we apply in order to get him to "respect" us? Will changing ten regimes stop him? Will nuking Saudia Arabia stop him? What will gain his respect? When you say "he respects force," precisely how much force do you mean?
I answered this a few days ago (well, with such an answer as I generally come up with, which might have been completely lame). Either my comment never made it or it got deleted (if you want me to go away, just say so! :-)
Obviously, the force it would take to stop Usama Bin Laden would be the force needed to capture or kill him. When I say terrorists respect force, I don't mean it causes them to necessarily surrender. But if we cut off their support and make it difficult for countries to harbor them, we limit their ability to attack, communicate, command and control.
Just like us, they don't have an endless supply of personnel, money and intelligence.
I'm sorry that people are suggesting nuking the arabs, etc. That's just dumb, not to mention immoral. I wonder if they really know what they are saying
Peace
bill
The thoughts of Bill on 13 August 2004 - 18:17 Central+ + + + +
Unless you post under the name "Cipro" or "enlargement pills," I will never delete your comments. My many apologies if there were any technical difficulties.
The thoughts of Wilson on 13 August 2004 - 20:44 Central+ + + + +
LOL! :-)
There's a likely chance that I got to "Preview" but didn't follow through to "Post" - in other words, a problem with the module on my side of the keyboard (that flighty and increasingly unreliably organ called, um, my brain).
The thoughts of Bill on 13 August 2004 - 23:24 Central+ + + + +
Er, that would be increasingly unreliable . . .
Yoiks!
+ + + + +
(You must preview your comment before posting it)
You're from Texas as well. If you've never heard the cry of "kill those 'A-rabs'," I'd be shocked.
The thoughts of Shem on 10 August 2004 - 4:39 Central+ + + + +