Why the War on Terrorism Can Never be Won.
May 31st 2007 00:23
Why the War on Terrorism Can Never be Won.
The short answer is that Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. This not a hard concept to understand but due to nature of the modern term of the ‘War on Terrorism’ we are being led to believe that that it is some kind of deeply rooted ideology. Some would have you believe that certain religions, cultures and ethnic groups are predisposed toward terrorism. Others have tried to associate only good with what they see as their way of life. They see terrorism in a battle between good and evil (which it is) where one side is good and the other a bad terrorist (not always true).
The naivety of some rhetorical questions shows nothing but a reinforcement of the common assumption that anything that opposes us is terrorism. “Why do they hate us?” was put up on websites around the world and few people even asked if the underlying assumption was true. Was it only pure hate or was there a purpose to the attack. The rhetorical answer went on to list wonderful and pure things that no one could disagree with, finally concluding that, “They hate us because we are good.” The real question is ‘why did the terrorists kill those people?’ The real answer is, “It was deemed (by some person) to be the most effective tactic at the time.” Hate, love, good and evil were not part of the reasoning. There was just an objective and a ruthless tactics.
The failure to grasp this has been the biggest failure in fight against terrorist organizations. We have replaced a clear understanding with a mythical monster that can never be killed. Hydras have less heads than terrorist groups and despite being mythical they are easier to kill. A suicide bombing is a tactic with a specific goal to achieve, so too is murder and torture. There is no single ideology of terrorism despite terrorists being ideologues that will to use violence. Violence is not an ideology, it is a behavior. The question of why a group will resort to violence is not hard to understand. They use violence because they believe that violence is the tactic that will work. It is not even a deep concept. A child can understand it.
We may see from time to time groups that pop up and are vanquished with ease. We may also see groups that seem impossible to stop and take decades to slowly wear down. Yet to see every enemy as part of the same set is a mistake. If we fought the Nazis in one war does it mean that will we fight the Nazis in every war? If we fight one group of terrorists do we defeat all groups of terrorists? So long as violence is used as a tactic we can never defeat terrorism as a tactic. Ideologies come and go but we are never free of terrorism because we are never free of violence.
The definition of terrorism is more complicated than what it does. We all know what terrorism does but how many people actually know what it is? Is it the intentional targeting of civilians or is it the ideological belief in violence itself? The later is non-sense because I am yet to see an ideology that worships violence for no reason. Yet there are plenty of ideologies that justify violence as a tactic to achieve their goals. There are even nations that use violence to achieve their goals but who suggests that they are terrorists? Even war uses violence as a tactic. No one has proposed that a War on War be declared as that would be the ultimate oxymoron. Yet war produces war criminals that would make many terrorists look like boy scouts. Napalm, cluster bomb, fire bombs and landmines are often used with absolutely no regards for civilian casualties. Holocaust and ethnic cleansing are just as terrifying as car bombs and assassins.
Dressed up in any form, or mystified by any ideology terrorism is no different than any other premeditated violent criminal act. A criminal that resorts to violence does so for an explicit reason. Violence is the tactic that will be used to ensure the crime is committed. There is no question over the operation of the universe and those that try to control it. There is only a purpose for the crime and way to fulfill that purpose. In terrorism the ideology is what has brought the group together but the act of violence is the actual crime.
Believing that violence is the correct tactic to achieving an objective is not unique to terrorism. Nor is the targeting or punishing of civilians. The Western World has been guilty of both in its history. The first concentration camp in history was a British invention designed to bring the Boer War (1899-1902) to an end. (So much for the claims of western moral superiority.)
The morality of using violence to solve the world’s problems is the root of the crime and terrorists are just groups of violent people. They should be treated as criminals on the same level as criminals, rather than elevated to the level of an ideological but repulsive equal and opposite to the West. The hypocrisy is obvious when images of Western injustices come back to haunt us and inspire them. Forget trying to destroy the ideology because modern western ideologies can be accused of being just as violent. Is Eugenics and forced Euthanasia less violent and repressive? In whose judgment do you make that conclusion? The answer either way is debatable.
In fighting a war on terrorism we are fighting a myth. It is a shadow that cannot be destroyed as long violence is seen as a viable tactic. It is impossible to destroy as long people hang into the notion that killing enough of any enemy will give you what you want. It is impossible to destroy if people are seen as expendable or as ‘collateral damage’ in an operation. We cannot kill a myth with guns and bombs. We can only kill people by blindly following that myth and follow it we have. It is pity that the results of this war on terror are not equally mythical.
Boer War Concentration camp victim. Britain killed 27 000 Boer women and children.
The naivety of some rhetorical questions shows nothing but a reinforcement of the common assumption that anything that opposes us is terrorism. “Why do they hate us?” was put up on websites around the world and few people even asked if the underlying assumption was true. Was it only pure hate or was there a purpose to the attack. The rhetorical answer went on to list wonderful and pure things that no one could disagree with, finally concluding that, “They hate us because we are good.” The real question is ‘why did the terrorists kill those people?’ The real answer is, “It was deemed (by some person) to be the most effective tactic at the time.” Hate, love, good and evil were not part of the reasoning. There was just an objective and a ruthless tactics.
Why are the KKK not being hunted down in the War on Terrorism?
We may see from time to time groups that pop up and are vanquished with ease. We may also see groups that seem impossible to stop and take decades to slowly wear down. Yet to see every enemy as part of the same set is a mistake. If we fought the Nazis in one war does it mean that will we fight the Nazis in every war? If we fight one group of terrorists do we defeat all groups of terrorists? So long as violence is used as a tactic we can never defeat terrorism as a tactic. Ideologies come and go but we are never free of terrorism because we are never free of violence.
The definition of terrorism is more complicated than what it does. We all know what terrorism does but how many people actually know what it is? Is it the intentional targeting of civilians or is it the ideological belief in violence itself? The later is non-sense because I am yet to see an ideology that worships violence for no reason. Yet there are plenty of ideologies that justify violence as a tactic to achieve their goals. There are even nations that use violence to achieve their goals but who suggests that they are terrorists? Even war uses violence as a tactic. No one has proposed that a War on War be declared as that would be the ultimate oxymoron. Yet war produces war criminals that would make many terrorists look like boy scouts. Napalm, cluster bomb, fire bombs and landmines are often used with absolutely no regards for civilian casualties. Holocaust and ethnic cleansing are just as terrifying as car bombs and assassins.
The tactic of using landmines?
Believing that violence is the correct tactic to achieving an objective is not unique to terrorism. Nor is the targeting or punishing of civilians. The Western World has been guilty of both in its history. The first concentration camp in history was a British invention designed to bring the Boer War (1899-1902) to an end. (So much for the claims of western moral superiority.)
The morality of using violence to solve the world’s problems is the root of the crime and terrorists are just groups of violent people. They should be treated as criminals on the same level as criminals, rather than elevated to the level of an ideological but repulsive equal and opposite to the West. The hypocrisy is obvious when images of Western injustices come back to haunt us and inspire them. Forget trying to destroy the ideology because modern western ideologies can be accused of being just as violent. Is Eugenics and forced Euthanasia less violent and repressive? In whose judgment do you make that conclusion? The answer either way is debatable.
In fighting a war on terrorism we are fighting a myth. It is a shadow that cannot be destroyed as long violence is seen as a viable tactic. It is impossible to destroy as long people hang into the notion that killing enough of any enemy will give you what you want. It is impossible to destroy if people are seen as expendable or as ‘collateral damage’ in an operation. We cannot kill a myth with guns and bombs. We can only kill people by blindly following that myth and follow it we have. It is pity that the results of this war on terror are not equally mythical.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Though they keep pushing the number down, since accurate records can't be kept apparently the best bet is 700,000. However they also up the number of Jews killed due to the same lack of records. Whats intersting is that despite the extensive documentations of the Nazi concentration camps when Jews and other people the Nazi's had an apparent distaste for you would be hard pressed to find any resources on just what happened after world war 2, for instance Wikipedia has a section dedicated to every Nazi concentration camp though does not mention much of waht ahppens after the war to a satisfying degree. For instance Aushwitz was never closed, it was used as a prison by the Russians, they neglect to mention the death tolls and the conditions or even why it was used as a prison and who was put in this prison.
Furthermore you'll never read in the history books about how Hitler created anti-Jewish sentiment, using the communists as the excuse claiming since they had a few Jewish members that all jews were inherintly evil. The problem is if this is brought up (as it is in the out of print 'winter in moscow') it makes it look like the Jews 'had it coming', though this isn't the case, not by a long shot, no one deserves to die for religion. But people run so emotionally they dont seem to understand that and they dont look at reality from a factual and objective basis, they just say 'hitler = monster'.
The reason is quite simple, people don't want to look at themselves as the same 'monsters' they claimed to have destroyed, they'd rather see the world as black and white where theres wrong and right and they are always on the right side.
So at the end, the war on terror really can't be won not just because terrorism is an ideology but because people lack the capacity to fight this ideology without embracing it, they get emotional and turn into the very things they seek out to destroy.
I think it could be winnable if people could be rational and look at these things from an objective perspective throughout and not allow their emotions to take control.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Though much of what you say is true and history is often what the winning side wishes you to know my assertion was that Terrorism is NOT an ideology but rather it is a TACTIC.
Are you of impression that it is an ideology?
I am interested to understand your reasoning on this matter.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
While it is a tactic I think it could also be an ideology, or at least a subset of a greater concept involving government control (such as communism).
Terrorising people to gain their trust or support, like dictators do for instance, so they set up governments based on terror to enforce law hence terror is no longer merely a tactic but an ideology in enforcing government..
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Therefore, if the attackers' identity does not immediately manifest itself, speculation, generalization and rumor-mongering come into play. Humans *must* have a specific target to blame for the attack. After all, one cannot launch a counterattack on an amorphous thing like " terrorists". There are terrorists for many many causes--whom to blame? Humans need names, identities, specific causes or figureheads to direct their anger toward. When this is not forthcoming, chaos, rumors and fear can accomplish a great deal in breaking down a once-unified group odf people.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
What you say is very true from my viewpoint.
From what I understand about Neo-Con theory is that they believe that keep a nation strong and focused they need to create iconic myths.
Myth of America one called it.
The need for an enemy, crisis and fear creates dependance upon a leader that will ensure the survival by creating 'patriotic' and self sacrificing masses.
Not my analysis but one that the Neocon ideologue promote.
Terrorism is a gift to such an ideology as it provides the mythical enemy.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.