September 11, Crisis Resolution

Articles

Interviews

Letters

Responses to September 11th

Speeches

Terrorism: The Need for a Comprehensive Approach

By Dennis J.D. Sandole
dsandole@gmu.edu

In the film, "Seven," with Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, Kevin Spacey, and Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey plays a bizarre serial murderer who, when asked by detective Brad Pitt why he has committed a series of ghastly murders, replies, "Sometimes you have to hit people on side of the head with a sledge hammer to get their attention!"

Clearly, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 constitute such a hit on the head for Americans. For a country that stopped the Holocaust and launched the Marshall Pan to rebuild Europe after World War II, prides itself on occupying the "moral high ground" in international affairs and which Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the victor in the ideological clash between democracy and communism, it was a double shock, on top of the traumatizing collapse of the World Trade Center, that the 19 men who overtook the four airlines with box cutters to turn them into cruise missiles, could have hated the U.S. that much.

How could that be? What could the U.S. have possibly done to incur such wrath, leading to the deaths of thousands and a pervasive sense of insecurity the likes of which have not been seen since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963?

Asking the questions is easy. The hard part is in recognizing that, in our outrage and anger, grieving and mourning, and in general, shock, the last thing that many of us want to hear is "analysis." However, if we want to win the "war against terrorism," then I am afraid that analysis is where we must begin.

Accordingly, for many worldwide, the U.S. -- the world's only superpower -- is viewed as the source of all that is evil in the world, a view which, rightly or wrongly, is reinforced by the perception of the U.S. arrogantly opting out of multilateral efforts to control the spread of greenhouse gases, small arms, land mines, racism, not to mention the possibility of generating another arms race with the Russians by proceeding with the development of a ballistic missile defense system in violation of one of the pillars of Cold War peace and security, the 1972 ABM treaty.

Add to this the clear perception that the U.S. supports Israel no matter what the latter does, including responding to the violence generated by Palestinian hopelessness with F-16 fighters, helicopter gunships, tanks, and house-destroying bulldozers. If the Russians or Chinese were responsible for similar assaults on the indigenous Palestinian population, who have been occupied and oppressed militarily for nearly half a century, the U.S. and others in the West would be justifiably outraged!

There is also the sense, expressed powerfully some 20 years ago during the Iranian hostage crisis, that the U.S., as the primary symbol of Western civilization and engine driving what is now known as Globalization, is the destroyer of traditional culture, society, and religion (e.g., Islam).

For wealthy Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden -- originally encouraged by the U.S. to wage warfare against the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s -- the last straw was the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (1990-91). Saudi Arabia is the site of two of the holiest shrines in Islam: Mecca where The Prophet Muhammad was born and Medina where The Prophet proclaimed the first Islamic state. U.S. forces are still in Saudi Arabia!

Bin Laden was also frustrated by the strategy of the West, particularly the U.S., to allow the brutal conflict in Bosnia to continue for three years at the expense of the primary victims, the Bosniak Muslims, before being embarrassed and shamed by the genocide perpetrated by Serb forces at Srebrenica in July 1995. To say that the U.S. stopped the warfare in Bosnia in 1995 more to protect the credibility of NATO than the lives of the surviving Bosniaks is not too far from the truth.

To mention any of this is not to excuse the atrocities committed on 11 September against Americans and the nationals of some 80 countries slaughtered and entombed forever in the rubble of the World Trade Center, but only to understand the possible motivation of those who hate the U.S. and the West so much that they are willing to perpetrate such acts of inhumanity against humanity itself and in the process, destroy themselves as well.

Many years ago, as a young U.S. Marine, I was encouraged to read "Mao tze-Tung on Guerrilla Warfare." When I naively inquired why I should read anything by "the Enemy," I was admonished, "To better understand him! If you know how your enemy thinks, then you can better deal with him!"

Well, it now seems that I, as an American citizen, have "enemies," simply by virtue of being an American. Witness the declarations of "Holy War" against all Americans issued by bin Laden in 1998, and more recently following the U.S. and British attacks on his training camps in Afghanistan. Consequently, it would behoove me and others to find out why, in order to better deal with him and his followers; in effect, to better defend ourselves! In the short term, this would mean, among other things, supporting efforts to increase security at airports and on board aircraft (through, for example, inaccessible doors to cockpits and the "disguised" presence of armed security guards). It would also mean bringing to justice those "still alive" who are responsible for the crimes against humanity committed on 11 September. But in the long run, it also means dealing with the deep-rooted problems worldwide for which we are, rightly or wrongly, held responsible and from which terrorists derive their motivation for their catastrophic acts.

If this means that the U.S. and others should act -- and be seen to be acting -- in a more just and fair way in the middle East conflict, then so be it. If this means that the U.S. should re-enter the Kyoto protocols to work with others in controlling the spread of greenhouse gasses (of which the U.S. alone generates some 25 percent), then so be it. If this means working with the World Bank and IMF to help them embed their policies within a complex, multidimensional framework that allows them to more effectively pay attention to the nuances of culture, society, and religion, then so be it. If this means that the first African American to occupy the position of U.S. Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, should have been in attendance at the recent UN Conference Against Racism in South Africa -- the home of President Nelson Mandela -- then why wasn't he?

We could go on, but one thing is certain: given the emotional, political, and security imperatives to act -- and to be seen to be acting -- to deal with the terrorists and to prevent further acts of terrorism, more so than to deal with the underlying deep-rooted problems which have driven them to their acts of terrorism, the danger exists that the U.S. and others may lash out, or be seen to be lashing out, almost blindly against some concretization of "the Enemy"; for instance, bin Laden's terrorist training camps and the Taliban government in wretchedly poor Afghanistan, killing hundreds, making life more miserable for the survivors (despite dropping tons of one-day rations on them), and creating a refugee crisis for neighboring Pakistan that threatens to bring down the government of that Islamic country which is supporting the West in its global campaign against terrorism.

Given that there are more than one billion Muslims worldwide, with some seven million in the U.S. alone -- many of whom (and others who "look like them") are being subjected to "racial profiling" and "hate-crime" assaults in the wake of the events of 11 September, the specter of the world's only superpower bombing an incredibly impoverished Islamic country may lead to the further radicalization of Muslims worldwide not (yet!) energized by a narrow "Holy War," anti-West version of Islam.

Indeed, in the event, the otherwise contentious "Clash of Civilizations" thesis promulgated by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington could be radically reinforced, leading to the self-fulfilling confirmation of his proposition that conflicts in the post-Cold War era would be waged between Western and other (e.g., Islamic) civilizations.

This is the last thing that the world needs! Despite President George W. Bush's claims that this "war" is not being waged against Islam, Arabs, or any other ethnic or religious group, it may be perceived that way. To avoid this and its calamitous consequences, the U.S. should go through some "paradigm-and-behavior shifting," foregoing its traditional defence and security paradigm in favor of the comprehensive reconceptualization pioneered by an organization to which the U.S. belongs, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Security for the 55 participating States of the OSCE -- comprising all former enemies of the Cold war and the neutral and nonaligned of Europe -- includes the traditional political and military components, but also the nontraditional economic and environmental, and humanitarian and human rights dimensions of security as well.

To win the "war against terrorism," therefore, the U.S. and others must wage their campaign on nontraditional as well as traditional fronts. This means confronting and combatting not just the terrorists and their atrocious acts of terrorism, but also the economic and environmental, humanitarian and human rights problems that give rise to them, providing them with their motivation. Otherwise, a narrowly-based, Realpolitik-only campaign could lead to self-fulfilling confirmation of originally fallacious ideas (e.g., that the West is anti-Muslim and anti-Arabic and/or that all Muslims and Arabs are anti-Western and anti-American). This could, in turn, lead to more acts of terrorism and counterterrorism, perhaps culminating in an explosively new bipolar "Clash-of-Civilizations" international disorder. And in the process, the "new multilateralism" between the Americans, Russians, and others, may be a pretext merely for exterminating thousands -- Bosniaks, Albanians, Palestinians, Kurds, Chechens, and others -- under the cover of "the global war against terrorism."

Given the various imperatives "to do something," the time is clearly ripe for the U.S. and others to "think outside the box," just like the 19 skyjackers with box cutters did on 11 September. Otherwise, the next time we get hit on the head with a "sledge hammer" (biological, chemical, or atomic), we may not be so lucky to have yet another opportunity to read the latest, "Mao tze-Tung on Guerilla Warfare."

Easier said than done? Well, one possibility here, imminently doable and pregnant with positive public relations and other multiplier-effect implications, would be for President Bush's national security advisor Dr. Condoleeza Rice and U.S. Secretary of State General Colin Powell to launch working groups on global problemsolving across multiple, interlocking traditional and nontraditional fronts, within the context of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning United Nations and its Secretary General Kofi Annan, as a profound way to demonstrate to peoples in the developing world that "Western" Civilization includes them as well.

If the events of, and since 11 September 2001 have any meaning, therefore, it is that we are all intimately interconnected: there is no longer any meaningful distinction between "us" and "them". On a global scale, we are all "us!" Gratifyingly, since 11 September, President Bush and his team seem to be moving toward acceptance of that conclusion!