War is Not a Solution for Terrorism
by Howard Zinn for the Boston Globe
September 2, 2006
There is something important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks, inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out. The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.
I remember John Hersey's novel, ``The War Lover," in which a macho American pilot, who loves to drop bombs on people and also to boast about his sexual conquests, turns out to be impotent. President Bush, strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier and announcing victory in Iraq, has turned out to be much like the Hersey character, his words equally boastful, his military machine impotent.
The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations -- the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- and were forced to withdraw. Even the ``victories" of great military powers turn out to be elusive. Presumably, after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president was able to declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country.
The two most powerful nations after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union, with all their military might, have not been able to control events in countries that they considered to be in their sphere of influence -- the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the United States in Latin America. Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a ``war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by nations, whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more deadly for innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.
The repeated excuse, given by both Pentagon spokespersons and Israeli officials, for dropping bombs where ordinary people live is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is called accidental, whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (on 9/11, by Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate. This is a false distinction, quickly refuted with a bit of thought. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a ``suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The proper description is ``inevitable."
So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of innocent people dying inevitably in ``accidental" events has been far, far greater than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war as a solution for terrorism. For instance, more than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by US bombs, presumably by ``accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the world in the 20th century and they do not equal that awful toll.
If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to reconsider their policies.
[As with any conflict, whether it is against Terrorists or ants in your garden, you must choose the appropriate weapons and appropriate methods of using them. You do not carpet bomb cities in an attempt to kill terrorists in just the same way as you don’t use mortars to kill ants in your back yard. We’re smarter than that. Shock and Awe might look good on the Six-O’clock News but it doesn’t exactly get you the results you want. The so-called ‘War on Terror’ is not only immoral and futile as Zinn points out, it’s also really, really stupid.]
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
9 comments:
The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence.
Indeed, WWII also displayed the futility of large scale violence. When was the last time that a large scale war went well for the people who started it in even the medium run? Serious question! The Franco-Prussian War -- which had the benefit of unifying a lot of Germany, maybe? I think that's it, and by then it was nevertheless an aberration.
War just . . . doesn't work, nowadays.
That's very true Chris. These days a military 'solution' is a very rare beast.
Violence never solves violence. But people like Bush never seem to come close to realising this.
Oh, I think you can fight violence with violence - you just have to be clever about it. Bombing villages is not clever. It just *really* pisses people off.
I agree with Chris. In a time when you can communicate rapidly to organize small groups of radicals from anywhere in the world, large scale military is a bit outdated. All you need is funding and when your sympathizers are oil barons funding is nothing to worry about.
However, I do have a problem with Mr. Zinn’s article. It’s like the ‘liberal response to the war’ cliché and I yawned at the end of it because I’ve read it all before. Bush is stupid, our military actions kill more innocents than terrorists, Israel doesn’t know what it’s doing, etc.
Let’s see less “Rawr Bush, Rawr Israel, Rawr Military, Rawr Rawr!!” and more “This is what we should do to remove terrorism.”
We can’t dig out militant terrorists with force. Said force usually causes more local and impressionable people to join the terrorist groups. So where do we strike and how do we do it?
I think the Bush administration blew it with Iraq, but I think the rest of the world needs to be held accountable for not dealing with Saddam, and now these Iranian and Korean nuts, sooner. Pacifism is all fine and good and it gets people reelected and glowing praise from the liberal media, but there are leaders in the world that need to be addressed by the world, forcibly and without yielding.
Anyone out there ever work in a management position? If you have a problem employee do you just make idle threats with no repercussions when they step out of line? This is a global community and if the ‘management’ is just going to push around paper with a lot of ‘shame, shame’ finger shaking and no action these radical leaders are going to build themselves into fortified bulwarks of idiocy and their friends are going to do the same. We need resolutions that are followed through to the smallest detail and people need to be held accountable, for the world to see.
*shakes head* I’m not for violence, and the military action that the US and Israel have been taking in an effort to stem terrorist activity are not highly effectual. However, they do have more effect than what the UN has done. The fact of the matter is, you don’t hinder terrorists by talking at them, no matter how much you do it, but if you blow up their weapons bunkers and take out some of their infrastructure you do.
Have you noticed that the number of reported suicide bombs in Israel has fallen off this last year? I had a friend in the service in the 80’s and he was stationed in Germany. He said that Israel’s military intelligence made everyone else’s look like kindergarten projects. They are a people under siege and they have been since their founding, I don’t believe for an instant that the ‘numbers of innocents’ reported killed in those attacks were ever accurate. Muslim radicals have long shown they know how to play the ‘blame’ game with the media. Israel knew who they were hitting, any innocent deaths were either fabricated, accidental, or dare I say it, arranged.
The loss of innocent life is inevitable in any form of military action, but when the offending nation clearly designates its ‘area of attack’ and broadcasts for people to evacuate on the radio, through dropped flyers, and on television I think there is a line that can be drawn between terrorists who go for the most blood and target innocents and military plans like Israel’s which seek to ‘eliminate’ any civilian casualties.
Can you imagine broadcasting your strategy to the enemy before executing the operation? How frustrating, but they did it.
Might is not right, but as CK said violence is the solution to violent individuals. There has to be better ways with dealing with terrorists and troublesome leaders. However, collectively poo-pooing those countries trying to do something while applauding those that are picking their fingernails in the back row is absolute idiocy. If we’re to make some end to this effort by hate mongers to polarize people who don’t know any better against countries that their constituents know nothing of other then what they are fed, we need to do it as a global community and there has to be some repercussion for failure to comply. It’s easier to hate a few ‘western’ nations then it is to hate the planet.
I just would like to see an article about how we should make the change. Criticism is fine but it would mean more if the countries yelling at the US and Israel were doing more than yelling. Anyone who’s ever played a sport knows that the people on the sideline can criticize all they want, but they’re still not the ones making the plays.
sirkolgate said: Let’s see less “Rawr Bush, Rawr Israel, Rawr Military, Rawr Rawr!!” and more “This is what we should do to remove terrorism.”
Except that it's practically impossible to 'remove' terrorism. It's an idea... in peoples heads. The only way to remove it is to remove the heads - of anyone *thinking* about a terrorist act. You can kill terrorists.. but you can't kill terrorism.
sirkolgate asked: So where do we strike and how do we do it?
You strike with the appropriate weapons, against the appropriate people at the appropriate time and place. The violence against the terrorists should be targetted at *them* and not spread about indiscriminantly as it is ATM.
sirkolgate said: I think the Bush administration blew it with Iraq, but I think the rest of the world needs to be held accountable for not dealing with Saddam...
Well, firstly Saddam had nothing to do with the causes of or the prosecution of the 'war on terror'. Iraq has become a training ground and a recruitment driver for them *because* we invaded. Second, Saddam was only a threat to his own people and some of his weaker neighbours. He was *not* a threat to our interests - unless you count him sitting on massive oil reserves as a 'threat' to our way of life.
sirkolgate: Pacifism is all fine and good and it gets people reelected and glowing praise from the liberal media, but there are leaders in the world that need to be addressed by the world, forcibly and without yielding.
...and how exactly do you think we should do that? We should invade any country that is stupid enough to piss us off? Do you have any idea what that would cost... in money and lives (on both sides). Do you think that 'addressing' these countries 'forceably' will make the world a safer place or a more dangerous one? If addressing these countries is not in our own national interest do you think that electorates will sanction a time of pretty much constant war?
sirkolgate said: We need resolutions that are followed through to the smallest detail and people need to be held accountable, for the world to see.
Everyone? Or just those that *we* perceive to be the 'bad guys'?
sirkolgate said: I don’t believe for an instant that the ‘numbers of innocents’ reported killed in those attacks were ever accurate.
The numbers of civilian deaths is always difficult (if not impossible) to calculate. They're always 'best guess'. But how many civilian deaths are 'acceptable' in any war? As to dropping leaflets to inform people that their village is going to be destroyed... how is that any different from terrorist actions elsewhere? Would you think it reasonable if a foreign power told you that you have 24 hours to leave your home before its destroyed? I wouldn't!
sirkolgate said: Might is not right, but as CK said violence is the solution to violent individuals.
That's not what I said and certainly not what I meant. I meant that sometimes the appropriate response to violence *is* counter-violence... but it *must* be the intelligent and focused use of force.
sirkolgate said: However, collectively poo-pooing those countries trying to do something while applauding those that are picking their fingernails in the back row is absolute idiocy.
So doing *anything* is always better than (apparently) doing nothing? Bombing somwhere is better than diplomatic efforts? War is a sign of failure not something to be proud of.
sirkolgate said: Anyone who’s ever played a sport knows that the people on the sideline can criticize all they want, but they’re still not the ones making the plays.
Though they do often have a better perspective and a clearer view of the bigger picture.
CyberKitten ruminated: Well, firstly Saddam had nothing to do with the causes of or the prosecution of the 'war on terror'. Iraq has become a training ground and a recruitment driver for them *because* we invaded. Second, Saddam was only a threat to his own people and some of his weaker neighbours. He was *not* a threat to our interests - unless you count him sitting on massive oil reserves as a 'threat' to our way of life.
To believe Saddam was not involved in terrorist activities is to believe a lie. If you don’t tie the two together with his history as a butcher and madman then there exists a great deal of ‘evidence’ that he supported terror long before we invaded, long before 9/11 even. Let’s not forget that he offered a ‘jihad insurance’ of thousands of dollars to the families of successful suicide bombers in Israel. Come on now… it wasn’t all that long ago.
Cyberkitten quipped: ...and how exactly do you think we should do that? We should invade any country that is stupid enough to piss us off? Do you have any idea what that would cost... in money and lives (on both sides). Do you think that 'addressing' these countries 'forcibly' will make the world a safer place or a more dangerous one? If addressing these countries is not in our own national interest do you think that electorates will sanction a time of pretty much constant war?
*shrug* Most people tend to think the UN is a good idea. I think it is on a humanitarian front, but I also know that it is impractical because regardless of how much technology there is and how greatly improved our communication system is, organizations like that still don’t know what the left hand is doing while the right hand is charging off out of control and the head is locked in ‘the’ political nightmare. Kinda like Kofi Annan’s son siphoning off millions of African aid. Bravo there.
So, in response to your stabbing questions I would say. Yes, and no. You can not let leaders that are clearly and quite evidently psychotic (as was Saddam as far back as the early Eighties) who have the resources to generate millions of dollars that no one can really track, simply flail about in their own country. Even if it doesn’t “seem” to be affecting the rest of us, that type of cancer will eat into the surrounding countries and quite possible spread throughout the world. We don’t know how big his organization was, we don’t know where he had people stationed or in power, we don’t know what foreign companies he bought into and had some control of. When you’re a maniac playboy with oil up the ass you can do whatever enters your nutso mind.
Do I suggest we blow up, invade, or otherwise destroy thousands of lives and billions of dollars in tax payer money to rectify the situation? Not really.
You’ve got tunnel vision if you think the only options are war and |insert whitenoise here|. Some very smart people need to get very creative and learn how to deal with these types of people without massive assaults. Train a crack commando unit and give them all the equipment and intelligence that major nations can get their hands on. Execute ‘surgical’ strikes and I guarantee that after a few ‘wackjob’ leaders vanish in the night, the next few may make career choice changes. Sure they may go underground, but that’s why you spend the money on intelligence and not the lack thereof.
That’s just ONE option. There’s also the idea of uniting the major world banks and having a global authority that can simply ‘switch it off’ for people who don’t want to play ball with the rest of the sane world.
To answer one of your questions directly: “Do you think that 'addressing' these countries 'forcibly' will make the world a safer place or a more dangerous one?” I think that using ‘force’ in the sense that I’ve explained above, not necessarily and most definitely as a last resort as far as full military scale is concerned, then it will be a MUCH more safer place. That is a given.
In regards to persecution of ‘baddies’ CyberKitten wondered: Everyone? Or just those that *we* perceive to be the 'bad guys'?
Well, I’m talking about the World Court. Something that is rather bloated and ineffectual at the moment, but there needs to be some form of representation that will create some ‘world constitution’ that will most likely form a ‘world bill of rights’ and that will give us a body of law to live by. Countries who break the law, well, now we’ve gotta develop a justice system.
Many of these things are already in place. I have no clue if any of it is being worked on now. I know that what the UN lacks is adequate funding since most countries are only required to give some small amount, and the rest is just donations. I don’t particularly like it, because it seems to be beyond the scope of human organization to operate a ‘globally minded’ institution. The UN to quickly becomes the |put country X here| minded institution who is also still primarily concerned with the UN. Write some more resolutions guys… you’re doing well.
CyberKitten remarked: The numbers of civilian deaths is always difficult (if not impossible) to calculate. They're always 'best guess'. But how many civilian deaths are 'acceptable' in any war? As to dropping leaflets to inform people that their village is going to be destroyed... how is that any different from terrorist actions elsewhere? Would you think it reasonable if a foreign power told you that you have 24 hours to leave your home before its destroyed? I wouldn't!
No death is ever acceptable. However, you can not simply sit by while your country is continually harassed. Hezbollah had more than enough time to answer certain demands before Israel invaded. When that organization chose to do nothing more than continue harassment, then they are the ones upon whom all the deaths should be piled. Every single last one.
You have a right inane in every civil court of law on every continent in every country to defend yourself. If someone comes into my home with a knife or a gun and tries to kill me or my wife I can use whatever means necessary to ensure that doesn’t happen. Whether I end up in jail for manslaughter or not depends, but should it be proved that I was in defense of my life there are few laws that would prevent my release.
We understand that right as individuals, how does it not pass to a country? Is the country supposed to let a certain number of people die before it does something? Is everything supposed to just wait, just in case the terrorists will get tired or bored? Are we supposed to concede to every threat and give in to every demand?
You say with vehemence that you would not leave your home if another country was telling you it was going to destroy it. You exercise a very irrational emotion of ownership and pride in the face of imminent destruction. You are not unlike Israel. In the face over overwhelming odds that nation stands and says “I will not leave because you say you will destroy me.”
Israel defended itself and it did so with terrible force. It was utterly horrifying. But, not only did it always give Hezbollah a chance to surrender and cease the destruction of its country, it also announced its war plans to the entire nation of Lebanon so people had time to flee the coming destruction.
The simple fact of the matter is there are terrorist targets to destroy. There are legitimate targets to remove. Since we can’t remove the thoughts from their polluted minds, we can remove their resources and their infrastructure. Freeze their assets, lock away those members you catch in your lands, develop ways to infiltrate their groups and learn their secrets, but you must also allow for a time when you take an army, enter their homelands, and bring the fight to them.
Terrorists will never stop, and attacks will harden their resolve, but you can’t just let them continue to plan, plot and stockpile. You have to get to a point where you simply can’t take any more civilian casualties on your own side and you’ve got to do something else. Maybe not war, but something very deadly and destructive to what they’ve been working towards.
CK finished with
That's not what I said and certainly not what I meant. I meant that sometimes the appropriate response to violence *is* counter-violence... but it *must* be the intelligent and focused use of force.
So doing *anything* is always better than (apparently) doing nothing? Bombing somwhere is better than diplomatic efforts? War is a sign of failure not something to be proud of.
Though they do often have a better perspective and a clearer view of the bigger picture.
Your first statement is exactly right, and remember I’m advocating action of ‘some’ kind, not necessarily war. However, I also don’t follow the logic that “War will inevitably lead to civilian casualties, sometimes more than terrorists, so in keeping with that argument war is terrorism, or at least as bad.” The logic is faulty because no one goes into a war planning on killing civilians, it’s in the intention of the act that fault is found. If you ‘intend’ to kill civilians you are a terrorist, if you choose to start a war you’re still not ‘intending’ to kill civilians and as long as you take very powerful precautions to ensure that civilians are NOT killed you’re not doing something evil. That’s an argument in foolishness. In fact I’d wager a great many soldiers of civil countries lose their lives because they weren’t sure if they were pulling the trigger on a civilian or not, just as I know some soldiers mistakenly shoot civilians.
I’m not proud of war. I am not glad that my country is like a dog trying to catch a weasel in the hen house but destroying everything but the weasel in the process. Do we need a better weasel trap? Sure. Do we all need to work together and trust each other if we want to face enemies like this in the future? Absolutely.
CK, while it is true that the sideliners have a good view of the ‘whole’ game they are still not the players in the game. Any person who has ever played a sport will tell you that knowing how to do the right thing when you’re watching the play on TV and knowing how to do the right thing when you’re in the game are two entirely different things. Honestly, and quite truthfully, if you weren’t the one doing it you don’t have the whole picture, regardless of what you see from your ‘seat’. The only way you get that is if the players all get together after the game and talk with you over a few beers while everyone watches a tape of the game.
In other words, the sideliner view is important, but not more so than those people who are putting their lives on the line, no more than those generals and captains who are making these plans and putting them into motion, and finally no more than the people who are planting the bombs themselves. Without all those pieces you can’t know if the decisions are all bad or not, even when precious human life is lost.
Wow - sirkolgate.... That's a LONG one. Let me try & address at least some of your points:
sirkolgate said: To believe Saddam was not involved in terrorist activities is to believe a lie.
Really? I thought that several high-level investigations showed that there was no link between 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden & Saddam....
sirkolgate said: Let’s not forget that he offered a ‘jihad insurance’ of thousands of dollars to the families of successful suicide bombers in Israel.
First I've heard of it... and hardly a reason for regime change!
sirkolgate said: Most people tend to think the UN is a good idea.
Me being one of them. It's far from perfect though - being a very human organisation.
sirkolgate said: You can not let leaders that are clearly and quite evidently psychotic (as was Saddam as far back as the early Eighties) who have the resources to generate millions of dollars that no one can really track, simply flail about in their own country.
Really? What right have we to intervene in the internal affairs of foreign countries? How could we justify it to our own people and the rest of the world?
sirkolgate said: Even if it doesn’t “seem” to be affecting the rest of us, that type of cancer will eat into the surrounding countries and quite possible spread throughout the world.
So, the justification for intervention (or whatever kind) is that it might affect us at some point in the future? I have a feeling that it won't fly to well with an electorate....
sirkolgate said: Execute ‘surgical’ strikes and I guarantee that after a few ‘wackjob’ leaders vanish in the night, the next few may make career choice changes.
So... we're talking targetted assassination & such like? Will that work? More likely the 'wackjobs' successor will be even more heavily guarded and will attempt to 'wack' the enemies leaders back. If the leaders are too heavily guarded they'd probably work down the totem pole... Ambassadors maybe... or heads of industry and commerce. Once that kind of things start where will it end? Also - how do we justify the decapitation of any regime we feel is a possible danger? Who or what gives us the right to do that?
sirkolgate said: There’s also the idea of uniting the major world banks and having a global authority that can simply ‘switch it off’ for people who don’t want to play ball with the rest of the sane world.
International co-operation? You're having a laugh right? Even the 7(?) members of the UN Security Council couldn't agree on what to do about Iraq. Are you expecting other institutions to be more cohesive - especially where money is concerned? I think not.
sirkolgate said: I think that using ‘force’ in the sense that I’ve explained above, not necessarily and most definitely as a last resort as far as full military scale is concerned, then it will be a MUCH more safer place. That is a given.
I disagree. When you start using violence against these states they (and others) will inevitably ramp up their defences (as much as possible) and strike back at their enemies - if possible. They will attemp to acquire WMD and if provoked they would be more likely to use them. Such actions would make the world less safe not more.
sirkolgate said: Well, I’m talking about the World Court. Something that is rather bloated and ineffectual at the moment, but there needs to be some form of representation that will create some ‘world constitution’ that will most likely form a ‘world bill of rights’ and that will give us a body of law to live by. Countries who break the law, well, now we’ve gotta develop a justice system.
Is this the same World Court that the USA would have nothing to do with because they were 'afraid' of malicious prosecutions - in other words they were afraid that their continued violation of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions would get them into a *whole* heap of trouble? Also - do you think that non-Western countries will a history of 1st World oppression would see a World Court backed up by the Western military as anything more that a return to 19th Century Imperialism? I'd doubt if most of the world would see such a 'court' as legitimate. Likewise I cannot conceive of many countries agreeing to a meaningful 'world constitution'.
sirkolgate said: No death is ever acceptable. However, you can not simply sit by while your country is continually harassed. Hezbollah had more than enough time to answer certain demands before Israel invaded. When that organization chose to do nothing more than continue harassment, then they are the ones upon whom all the deaths should be piled. Every single last one.
Not so. Hezbollah are responsible for the deaths *they* caused. Israel is responsible for the disproportionate number of deaths *they* caused.
sirkolgate said: Is the country supposed to let a certain number of people die before it does something? Is everything supposed to just wait, just in case the terrorists will get tired or bored? Are we supposed to concede to every threat and give in to every demand?
Countries do indeed have the right to defend themselves. This doesn't mean, however, that they have a free hand in that defence. It must be reasonable and proportionate. Did Lebonnan have the right to defend itself when its capital was regularly bombed by Israeli jets because of the govenments inability to control a group living within its borders? Would Iran have the right to defend *itself* if attacked by Israel and/or the USA?
sirkolgate said: Terrorists will never stop, and attacks will harden their resolve, but you can’t just let them continue to plan, plot and stockpile. You have to get to a point where you simply can’t take any more civilian casualties on your own side and you’ve got to do something else. Maybe not war, but something very deadly and destructive to what they’ve been working towards.
Armed raids - no matter how big never has worked and never will. They only suceed in producing more terrorists. Do you think the Lebonan fiasco made Israel more or less secure? It's not a difficult question.
sirkolgate said: Do we all need to work together and trust each other if we want to face enemies like this in the future? Absolutely.
Nice in theory but I don't see it happening any time soon.
If having a loony leader was a reason to invade a country - we should have invaded the USA under Reagan:-)
Post a Comment