Our War On Terrorism

I am calling it "our" war onterrorism because I want to distinguish it from Bush's war on terrorism, andfrom Sharon's, and from Putin's. What their wars have in common is that they arebased on an enormous deception: persuading the people of their countries thatyou can deal with terrorism by war. These rulers say you can end our fear ofterrorism--of sudden, deadly, vicious attacks, a fear new to Americans--bydrawing an enormous circle around an area of the world where terrorists comefrom (Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya) or can be claimed to be connected with(Iraq), and by sending in tanks and planes to bomb and terrorize whoever liveswithin that circle.

Since war is itself the most extreme form ofterrorism, a war on terrorism is profoundly self-contradictory. Is it strange,or normal, that no major political figure has pointed this out?

Even within their limited definition ofterrorism, they--the governments of the United States, Israel, Russia--areclearly failing. As I write this, three years after the events of September 11,the death toll for American servicemen has surpassed 1,000, more than 150Russian children have died in a terrorist takeover of a school, Afghanistan isin chaos, and the number of significant terrorist attacks rose to atwenty-one-year high in 2003, according to official State Department figures.The highly respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London hasreported that "over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large withrecruitment accelerating on account of Iraq."

With the failure so obvious, and thePresident tripping over his words trying to pretend otherwise (August 30:"I don't think you can win" and the next day: "Make no mistakeabout it, we are winning"), it astonishes us that the polls show a majorityof Americans believing the President has done "a good job" in the waron terrorism.

I can think of two reasons for this.

First, the press and television have notplayed the role of gadflies, of whistleblowers, the role that the press shouldplay in a society whose fundamental doctrine of democracy (see the Declarationof Independence) is that you must not give blind trust to the government. Theyhave not made clear to the public--I mean vividly, dramatically clear--what havebeen the human consequences of the war in Iraq.

I am speaking not only of the deaths andmutilations of American youth, but the deaths and mutilations of Iraqi children.(I am reading at this moment of an American bombing of houses in the city ofFallujah, leaving four children dead, with the U.S. military saying this waspart of a "precision strike" on "a building frequently used byterrorists.") I believe that the American people's natural compassion wouldcome to the fore if they truly understood that we are terrorizing other peopleby our "war on terror."

A second reason that so many people acceptBush's leadership is that no counterargument has come from the opposition party.John Kerry has not challenged Bush's definition of terrorism. He has not beenforthright. He has dodged and feinted, saying that Bush has waged "thewrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Is there a right war, aright place, a right time? Kerry has not spoken clearly, boldly, in such a wayas to appeal to the common sense of the American people, at least half of whomhave turned against the war, with many more looking for the wise words that atrue leader provides. He has not clearly challenged the fundamental premise ofthe Bush Administration: that the massive violence of war is the proper responseto the kind of terrorist attack that took place on September 11, 2001.

Let us begin by recognizing that terroristacts--the killing of innocent people to achieve some desired goal--are morallyunacceptable and must be repudiated and opposed by anyone claiming to care abouthuman rights. The September 11 attacks, the suicide bombings in Israel, thetaking of hostages by Chechen nationalists--all are outside the bounds of anyethical principles.

This must be emphasized, because as soon asyou suggest that it is important, to consider something other than violentretaliation, you are accused of sympathizing with the terrorists. It is a cheapway of ending a discussion without examining intelligent alternatives to presentpolicy.

Then the question becomes: What is theappropriate way to respond to such awful acts? The answer so far, given by Bush,Sharon, and Putin, is military action. We have enough evidence now to tell usthat this does not stop terrorism, may indeed provoke more terrorism, and at thesame time leads to the deaths of hundreds, even thousands, of innocent peoplewho happen to live in the vicinity of suspected terrorists.

What can account for the fact that theseobviously ineffective, even counterproductive, responses have been supported bythe people of Russia, Israel, the United States? It's not hard to figure thatout. It is fear, a deep, paralyzing fear, a dread so profound that one's normalrational faculties are distorted, and so people rush to embrace policies thathave only one thing in their favor: They make you feel that something is beingdone. In the absence of an alternative, in the presence of a policy vacuum,filling that vacuum with a decisive act becomes acceptable.

And when the opposition party, theopposition Presidential candidate, can offer nothing to fill that policy vacuum,the public feels it has no choice but to go along with what is being done. It isemotionally satisfying, even if rational thought suggests it does not work andcannot work.

If John Kerry cannot offer an alternative towar, then it is the responsibility of citizens, with every possible resourcethey can muster, to present such an alternative to the American public.

Yes, we can try to guard in every possibleway against future attacks, by trying to secure airports, seaports, railroads,other centers of transportation. Yes, we can try to capture known terrorists.But neither of those actions can bring an end to terrorism, which comes from thefact that millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere are angered byAmerican policies, and out of these millions come those who will carry theiranger to fanatic extremes.

The CIA senior terrorism analyst who haswritten a book signed "Anonymous" has said bluntly that U.S.policies--supporting Sharon, making war on Afghanistan and Iraq--"arecompleting the radicalization of the Islamic world."

Unless we reexamine our policies--ourquartering of soldiers in a hundred countries (the quartering of foreignsoldiers, remember, was one of the grievances of the American revolutionaries),our support of the occupation of Palestinian lands, our insistence oncontrolling the oil of the Middle East--we will always live in fear. If we wereto announce that we will reconsider those policies, and began to change them, wemight start to dry up the huge reservoir of hatred where terrorists are hatched.

Whoever the next President will be, it is upto the American people to demand that he begin a bold reconsideration of therole our country should play in the world. That is the only possible solution toa future of never-ending, pervasive fear. That would be "our" war onterrorism.

Howard Zinn, the author of A People'sHistory of the United States, is a columnist for The Progressive.Courtesy, Znet