|
US At War !
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have changed everything (well almost everything). Nobody criticizes their government when the country is at war. So what are we to do?
In the article below, Dr. Bowman looks to the future and recommends actions to restore security to the American people.
In the past, we have been very critical of the new Bush Administration. In all fairness, we should point out that there has been much to praise in their handling of the September 11th tragedy and in the president’s speech in particular. He has gone to great lengths to, as we have proposed, isolate the terrorists from the larger Islamic community. He has pointed out the peaceful nature of true Islam. He has enlisted the support of clerics in the Muslim community. And he has not been quick to engage in indiscriminate military retaliation. For all this we are thankful.
President Bush’s approach to the short-term internal security problem has also been good. We realize that some civil libertarians worry that the new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Defense sounds an awful lot like a Secret Police. But we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
We were disappointed in the rigidity of the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban. His talk of "non-negotiable" demands sounded an awful lot like the way his father dealt with Saddam Hussein and the way Clinton dealt with Milosevic. When you don’t leave people a graceful way to capitulate while saving face, you make war inevitable. In all three of these cases, it appears that our government was determined not to give the adversary a way to avoid war. It is also the way Truman prolonged World War II long enough for us to test our new atomic bombs. We never seem willing to accept an enemy’s capitulation without insisting on him humiliating himself. They seldom do. The Taliban won’t either. It almost appears that the powers behind the Bush throne have decided that September 11th provides just the excuse we need to eliminate all the troublesome regimes that refuse to cooperate with global corporatism. If so, it’s going to be a long and bloody war. We hope we are wrong and are just making too much of the "non-negotiable" business in his speech.
Let us all hope and pray that this war is just us against the terrorists. Then God bless America. If it turns out to be the West against the entire Muslim world, God help us all.
TERRORISM: What Do We Do Now ?
by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
I never set out to become an expert on terrorism, its causes, and its prevention. I was never in the CIA or the Green Berets. I was a fighter pilot and rocket scientist. My expertise was in nuclear strategy and space systems. Though I had directed all the "Star Wars" programs under presidents Ford and Carter, I was interested in the peaceful uses of space, not space weapons.
But then Reagan was elected, and I was drafted by members of his Joint Chiefs of Staff and a handful of people in the peace movement to educate the Congress and the American people about the lunacy of his version of "Star Wars." In doing so, I spent a lot of time with the people in the basement of the Pentagon working on the systems. Every time I proved to them that these weapons would be useless against a massive Soviet attack and that the Soviet first-strike capability was a myth anyway, they would reluctantly admit I was right ... and then bring up terrorism.
The American people never did catch on. Only after the fall of the Soviet Union was the internal excuse for "Star Wars" weapons tried on the public. (They had to. The "Soviet threat" had gone away.) Naturally, I had to analyze this new threat. It didn’t take much work to show that, though the threat was real, "Star Wars" weapons weren’t the answer, because the new threat was not from ballistic missiles. At the same time, I began to believe that the terrorist threat to the American people was far more serious than the Soviet Union ever was, even at the height of their power. That, of course, led to the question, "Well if Star Wars isn’t the answer, what is?"
After studying the situation for a number of years, I finally gave an answer. On August 23, 1998, I gave a sermon on terrorism. Excerpts were later printed in the National Catholic Reporter on October 2, 1998 (page 17), and in December of that year I devoted an entire issue of S&SN to the topic. Before discussing the specifics of this year’s tragic attack, let’s review some of what I said three years ago.
Terrorism is wrong. Whether it is in the Middle East or Northern Ireland or Oklahoma City, it is wrong. There are always reasons for such violence. But there is never justification. It is always wrong.
If the lies about terrorism go unchallenged, then the terror war now unleashed will likely continue until it destroys us. We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations.
Tell people the truth, Mr. President. The threat of nuclear terrorism is closing in upon us. Chemical terrorism is close at hand, and biological terrorism is a future danger. None of our thousands of nuclear weapons can protect us from these threats. No "Star Wars" system can protect us from even a single terrorist bomb. Not one weapon in our vast arsenal can shield us from a nuclear weapon delivered in a sailboat or a Cessna or a suitcase or a Ryder rental truck. Nothing in our enormous military establishment can actually give us one whit of real security. That is a military fact.
The only real threat we face is that of terrorism. And if we understand the reason that threat exists (and this is why it is so crucial that the American people be told the truth), then the way to protect against that threat becomes clear. We change our ways.
Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so oil companies can sell the oil under their sand, we send them to supply clean water and feed starving children.
Instead of continuing to kill thousands of Iraqi children with our sanctions, we help Iraqis rebuild electric powerplants, water treatment facilities, hospitals — all the things we destroyed.
Instead of seeking to be king of the hill, we become a responsible member of the family of nations. Instead of stationing hundreds of thousands of troops around the world to protect the financial interests of our multinational corporations (they prefer the term "national interests"), we bring them home.
Instead of supporting military dictatorships, we support true democracy — the right of the people to choose their own leaders.
In short, we do good instead of evil. We are good people. We only need to be told the truth and given the vision. You can do it, Mr. President. Seek to end the injustice rather than perpetuating it with violence and intimidation. Refrain from terrorism, even in response to the same. Stop the killing. Stop the justifying. Stop the retaliating. Put people first. Tell them the truth.
That was three years ago. Now the World Trade Center lies in ruins. The Pentagon is damaged. Thousands of Americans have died. Almost every columnist and TV pundit is crying for massive military retaliation. It’s tempting to agree. I have no sympathy for those who murdered our people. If I were recalled to active duty, I would go in a heartbeat. At the same time, all my military experience and knowledge tells me that retaliation hasn’t rid us of the problem in the past, and won’t this time. If retaliation worked, Israelis would be the world’s most secure people.
I take absolutely no pleasure in saying, "I told you so." This is not the time to beat our breast, going over all our sins of the past. Neither is it a time for lashing out in anger. It is a time for our government to realistically assess the situation and devise a plan for providing the greatest possible security for the American people. That is job one!
We must make our people secure, and that requires both long-term and short-term approaches. The short-term problem is to protect the American people from the terrorists who already hate us. The long-term problem is to stop making more people hate us, so that the terrorist threat can one day go away.
Approaches to the Short-term Problem
The short-term problem is largely one of internal security. We must try to make it very difficult for terrorists to succeed at causing such massive damage again.
Much of the emphasis will be on the airlines. (This is closing the proverbial barn door.) The terrorists know that they will never be able to pull off such a stunt again. For decades, airline pilots had been trained to cooperate with terrorists and negotiate after landing. In the past, this has almost always worked. No one expected them to use fully-fueled airliners as missiles. Now that this possibility is one we are all painfully aware of, never again will pilots allow hijackers to gain access to the cockpit. Even if terrorists slit the throats of every passenger and flight attendant, the pilots will stay locked in the cabin. Reinforced doors will be installed. Closed-circuit television monitors will enable pilots to see what’s going on in the passenger compartment. Pilots will be given their own latrine so they don’t have to come out of the cockpit. Hatches will be provided so that the flight attendants can pass meals and drinks to the flight crew without opening the door. As a last line of defense, pilots will be armed. Most importantly, pilots will sacrifice the plane, themselves, and the passengers before allowing hijackers to take control. I believe the terrorists realize that this was a one time deal. They will never try it again. (Airline travel is therefor probably safer now than it has ever been.)
But they will try other things. Smuggle bombs onto a cruise liner? Nukes on light aircraft? Sabotage a football stadium with a hundred thousand people in it? Poison water supplies? Who knows what else? We need a "red team" to think like terrorists and come up with possible scenarios so that they can be neutralized before they happen — not after.
Improve intelligence (not CIA "dirty tricks"). Implement computerized tracking of aliens on temporary visas. Freeze terrorist finances.
With measures such as these, we can provide relative security for the American people ... for a while. But security will never be perfect (especially in a free and open society). Eventually, terrorists will figure a way to strike us again and succeed. And next time it may involve weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, or biological). That’s why it is crucial for us to address the long-term problem, stop making new terrorists, and render current ones impotent.
Approaches to the Long-term Problem
Only one thing has ever ended a terror campaign -- denying the terrorist organization the support of the larger community it represents. And the only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate the legitimate grievances of the people. If indeed Osama bin Laden or another Arab was behind the four hijackings and subsequent carnage, that means addressing the concerns of Arabs and Muslims, especially the Palestinians.
Above all, it means changing US policies so as not to exacerbate the problem. A massive military retaliation causing the deaths of thousands of Arabs is the worst possible thing we could do. Vengeance may feel good, but it would only guarantee an endless supply of fresh terrorists for decades to come. It would radicalize the Muslim world, turning millions against us who now are on our side. It would marginalize the moderate, peaceful Muslims who today make up the vast majority of the population. It might even get American Muslims to start sympathizing with the terrorists — something unthinkable up to now. In short, it may be exactly what the terrorists want! We can have security, or we can have revenge. We cannot have both.
If what we want is security, we must carefully devise a plan that can actually work. If indeed we can prove the guilt of Osama bin Laden or others, we should indict them as common criminals and request their extradition for trial and imprisonment. Such an action would be supported by the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. By the way, as a career military officer, I very much resent giving the 9/11 murderers the status of soldiers by calling this an act of war. It was not. It was a criminal act of brutal murder. If we capture those responsible, they should not be accorded the status of prisoner of war. That is much too good for them.
We should also quietly enlist the support of Muslim clerics around the world and get them to condemn terrorist acts as contrary to the true Islamic faith (which they are). Just as the pacifist religion of Jesus was twisted by Christian rulers to support the Crusades and countless wars, so too has Islam been twisted by fundamentalist militaristic Muslims with their own political agenda. But the Jihad no more represents true Islam than the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition represent true Christianity.
We should take advantage of this fact to isolate bin Laden and other terrorists from the Islamic community. We should make league with Muslims around the world, recruiting them in a nonviolent struggle against terror and injustice.
Of course, that will require that we adopt national policies which support the legitimate interests of ordinary people (be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or whatever), and not the financial interests of the oil companies.
For example, we must adopt energy policies which promote independence from oil imports. That does NOT mean opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Arctic Refuge and the Gulf of Mexico and Florida’s beaches to drilling. It does mean promoting energy efficiency, conservation, renewable sources, and non-polluting transportation. It means raising federal mileage standards for automobiles, including SUVs and light trucks. It means promoting gas/electric hybrids like the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius. (Why aren’t such cars being made in Detroit?) It means once again subsidizing solar energy (as was done under Carter). Such policies will not be popular with the oil companies and their executives (like Bush and Cheney), but they would allow our foreign policies toward the Middle East to be less obnoxious to the people of the region (and less dangerous to the people of America!).
It does NOT mean abandoning Israel. But it may very well mean withdrawing financial and military support until they abandon most of the settlements in occupied territory and return to 1967 borders, expanded somewhat to include most of Jerusalem and contiguous settlements. (Before you call me anti-Semitic, you should know that I’m part Jewish and have many relatives who follow the Jewish faith. We also have Israelis on our Advisory Board. But like many Israelis, we oppose the mistreatment of Palestinians by the current government of Israel.)
It may also mean allowing Arab countries to have leaders of their own choosing, not hand-picked, CIA-installed dictators willing to cooperate with Western oil companies.
Importantly, it might mean a Marshall Plan for development of the region. It would be less costly than the war currently being planned, and certainly less costly than the events of September 11th.
We must recognize that young Arabs become terrorists not because of our Christianity or our democracy or our freedom or even the human rights we allow our women, not even because of our consumerism and materialism (though they do rightly find it repulsive). They become terrorists because of our responsibility (as they see it) for their suffering, deprivation, and despair. Terror arises out of lives of misery and from a feeling that nobody is listening or paying any attention to their grievances. A terrorist act is a desperate attempt to get some attention paid to one’s plight. This does not justify the horrific acts we have witnessed or excuse the murderers who planned them. But it does explain why young men would be willing to give their lives to carry them out.
One idea that could alleviate some of the desperation and hopelessness involves the creation of institutions whose very purpose is listening to the grievances of the powerless. An International Criminal Court is surely needed. The United States should drop its objections and support the ICC. But beyond that, we need some international agency for hearing, mediating, and hopefully alleviating grievances. It would be the global equivalent of a combination of King Solomon and Small Claims Court. Both binding and non-binding arbitration would be offered. Of course, enforcement powers would be necessary. The United Nations has already ruled that Israel must give back the territory seized in the 1967 war, but its rulings have been ignored. The United States and the government of Israel are guilty of undermining the institutions (including the World Court) which already exist. This behavior MUST CHANGE! If we, the most powerful nation on earth, refuse to abide by international law, we leave the weak and downtrodden no alternative to terrorism.
Chester Gillings has said it very well: "How do we fight back against bin Laden? The first thing we must ask ourselves is what is it we hope to achieve -- security or revenge? The two are mutually exclusive. If it is security we seek, then we must begin to answer the tough questions -- what are the grievances of the Palestinians and the Arab world against the United States, and what is our real culpability for those grievances? Where we find legitimate culpability, we must be prepared to cure the grievance wherever possible. Where we cannot find culpability or a cure, we must communicate honestly our positions directly to the Arab people. In short, ... remove ourselves as a combatant in the disputes of the region."
To kill bin Laden now would be to make him an eternal martyr. Thousands would rise up to take his place. In another year, we would face another round of terrorism, probably much worse even than this one.
But listen to grievances and then do something about them and support for terrorism will evaporate. Then bin Laden and his money cease to be a threat. We CAN have security, but we must pay attention to both the short and long-term views. Countless American lives depend on it. We can do no less.
=============================================================
This article was first printed in the September 2001 issue of Space and Security News.
Top of Page
|