Terrorism has obsessed us for more than a decade. George W. Bush declared a “war” on it. His
successor has tried to wean us off that concept, but it remains embedded in our
psyche. We Americans are drawn to the
broad all-inclusive brush, headlines rather than detail. Would that reality reflected such a
simplistic view. It doesn’t. We humans, and what we do, are much more nuanced;
our actions often inconsistent, even contradictory. Lumping disparate groups under a single
umbrella — in this case terrorists — is misleading and, as such, can be costly. It leads to flawed policy and decision-making
that may undermine us both at home and abroad.
A case in point is that even now many of our fellow
citizens probably view Muslims as followers of a single — read that unchristian
— ideology or religion. Looking at today’s
raging conflict between Sunnis and Shiites especially in Iraq and Syria, it’s
clear that nothing could be further from the truth. Not only are their takes on Islam different,
at the extreme they can be mortal enemies.
These are denominational sectarian conflicts over which of the two
possesses the true faith. Who knew? Well obviously some people knew very well and
all the others should have known. It
happens that those who followed Osama bin Laden were Muslims who also committed
a series of terrorist attacks. It is also
true that Al Qaeda members represent an extreme of Islam, in this case Sunni
Islam. Does it follow that all Muslims
are terrorists or even that those who follow an extreme form of Islam — the
ultra-orthodox — are terrorists? Of
course not on both counts. The rulers
of Saudi Arabia follow Wahabism, a very extreme form of Sunni Islam and they
are not deemed to be terrorists.
Who is a terrorist?
Someone who carries out acts calculated to terrify and thus intimidate is
probably an adequate definition. And we
tend to associate terrorist acts, the kind that have gotten so much of our
attention, as ones of unbridled violence, often targeting the innocent. Whether or not the horrendous murder of three
Israeli teens is an act of terrorism or criminality is yet to be determined,
but the former would not be surprising.
While painful, especially in light of such news, let’s ask the broader question
to which we probably should be devoting much more time than we do, if at all. When do those who have engaged in terrorist
acts — individuals or groups — become something else? When have they reached a state beyond terrorism?
Consider this.
Menachem Begin,
who served as Prime Minister of Israel and signed the breakthrough peace treaty
with Egypt, started out as a terrorist.
The
forerunner
of what ultimately became Bibi Netanyahu’s rightest
and governing (in coalition) Likud Party was Begin’s terrorist organization. The widely labeled terrorist organization Sinn
Fein is now a political party in Ireland.
And how would you characterize the popes and Catholic Church that
condoned and committed clear acts of terror during the Crusades as its minions
marched across Europe and into the Middle East reaping death and havoc on the
way?
The Crusades are an interesting and timely
example. Sent out by religious leaders,
their objective was to reclaim all of the lands through which they passed for
Christianity. Their infidel enemies were Muslims and the caliphate under which they
lived. Remember how George W. Bush was
criticized for calling his “war on terrorism” a Crusade and thus raising the specter of a religious war? The Crusades of the middle and late medieval
periods were religious conflicts. Each side claimed ownership of the truth and
of course acting in God’s name. While
the kind of brutality it has displayed may be different, Isis is bent on conquering
lands to reestablish a Sunni caliphate in modern times. They seek a theocracy to replace infidel, often secular, governance. Were the followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini
who overthrew the shah to establish a theocracy in Iran terrorists? Again, Isis may be waging a ruthless fight,
but others have done so as before them. As they
capture territory and declare
statehood, a caliphate theocracy,
they promise to collect the garbage, provide social services and pay workers
wages. That these will be funded by
stolen, or confiscated if you take their view, money is not the issue. They are simply following the heretofore-successful
model of Hezbollah and Hamas.
Now don’t get me wrong, I abhor theocracies and am
wary of anyone — following any religion or ideology — that claims to possess the truth. If I encountered an Isis warrior on the
street, he would likely not hesitate to take my life not because what I have done
but for who I am. The real question, and
a painfully controversial one to be sure, is not about brutality. That must be condemned and, yes, opposed by
all of us. Rather it is whether anyone
who seeks political change through the use of violence is a terrorist? Or to put it differently, at what point does
a group that employed terrorist tactics to gain power become something else,
albeit a something we don’t necessarily like?
Admittedly, these radicals aren’t seeking change at the ballot box, but
neither did the founders of our great democracy. They obviously didn’t employ terrorist
tactics, but they felt forced to wage war against the ruling English for the
right to self-rule. Yes, we can say that
we heartily dislike Isis’ radical Islamist ideology, their medieval worldview and
certainly their bloody tactics, but their stated goal is ultimately not relatively
different than that of many past revolutions.
Is it any less legitimate?
In a recent interview Charlie Rose asked Harvard Law
professor and Barack Obama mentor Laurence Tribe
what is the most important message he has left with his students. Perhaps, he replied, it is that “there are more
sides to every issue. Things are not
advanced by planting your feet in the sand and sticking to a position.” The bottom line: “put yourself in someone
else’s mind.” His words are directed at
law students, future advocates, but we would do well to take his advice to
heart — exactly the opposite of what seems to be afoot these days. As I’ve written before, planting our feet in
the sand has become endemic in today’s politics and culture. It all too often pervades our approach to the
wider world as well. We see everything
in terms of good guys and bad guys,
black and white. Once we’ve branded (often
opportunistically) a country or group as one or the other, the characterization
sticks.
We do so inconsistently and this can make for very strange bedfellows. We stamp ultra-orthodox and bad on those with
whom we are in conflict; in the current environment we seem to mindlessly brand
them all as terrorists. Isis falls in this camp but so does the
Taliban, as if they were cut of identical cloth. Conversely the equally religiously extreme
Saudi monarchy (ask their women) is labeled good
and legitimate. We considered Mubarak a staunch ally even
though he was a cruel dictator masquerading in a custom made Savile Row suit
and we stay mostly silent when General Sisi takes power in a coup and condemns
an untold number of opponents to death in mock courts. The definition of our interests is, to be charitable, as flexible as Jell-O and at
times totally inconsistent.
I said earlier that we tend to brand others good or
bad and that the characterization sticks.
Let’s amend that. It sticks until
it doesn’t. Think Germany. Whatever all of the now labeled terrorist
groups have done in the last decades, it pales in comparison to what evil was
wrought by the National Socialists, with the support of their German citizenry. Hitler was elected Chancellor. The Nazis slaughtered millions, among them
members of my extended family. They
claimed to be the Master Race and they
invaded other lands not only to extend their territory but also to spread their
sick truth. Fast forward, and not that far, Germany is a
BFOA and we of them. The monster is the
partner (even when we eavesdrop on Andrea Merkel’s phone conversations). The point is that we are very capable of
reassessing and, as Professor Tribe admonishes his students, not “planting our
feet in the sand”.
In my view, religious absolutism, the domain of the
ultra-orthodox whether Muslim, Christian or Jew, is poisonous. It may not always express itself in violence,
but holding the view that our way is the
only legitimate way the potential for bad outcomes always exists. The ultra orthodox Jewish settlers on the
West Bank who believe firmly that all of the Holy Land is theirs by divine right could easily be moved to
violence, even terrorism, if they saw their way of life really threatened. A still complaint Israeli government keeps
the lid on by avoiding the obviouis, but what happens when it finally (and
inevitably if it wants to survive) accepts and implements a two-state solution
is anyone’s guess. History doesn’t make me
optimistic in that regard.
We may not agree with them, we may not like them and
we certainly can’t condone their acts of terror. But we should try to put ourselves in their minds;
we should contextualize their situation.
For one, what moves those we label terrorists with our broad brush are
not always the same. Isis claims to want
a restoration of a caliphate, but they never have governed. We may see the Taliban as enemies because
they hosted bin Laden, but they did rule Afghanistan for a time, albeit in a
theocratic manner. We too are committed
to our way and continually claim that we would make what President Kennedy
called “any sacrifice” to protect it. We
pride ourselves on being an open society and in secular governance, even though
not always perfectly.
Those we call terrorists, often but not always
accurately, engage heinous acts, but let’s not assume they do so without their
own dreams and also frustrations. We may
think their ways are misguided and unforgivable, but we would do well to think
of what’s going on in their heads. It’s
convenient to brand them all terrorists, but that broad brush inhibits us from
moving beyond today and from differentiating between one branded terrorist from another, not to mention
from adversaries who may simply be waging war.
We’ve painted a forest and have lost sight of the trees, existing and
potential. At some point that must end,
we must get beyond terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment