Besides the apt expressions of outrage and sorrow, the usual governmental responses to terrorist attacks are two: one offensive, and one defensive. The first, pursuit and retaliation, involves the hunting down, killing, incarceration, and “interrogation” of suspected terrorists (and often, friends or family members), and so on. The second, defensive maneuvering, involves the implementation of measures aimed at imposing physical or intelligence-based barriers to future attacks.
So, for example, in responding to 9/11, the U.S. pursued and retaliated by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, hunting down, killing, and rounding up large numbers of suspected terrorists for indefinite uncharged detention and “interrogation” at Guantanomo and other U.S. gulags (those uncharged detainees who survived the trip, that is), and so on. As is typically the case, this response involved considerable collateral civilian damage---more Afghani civilians were killed during the war than persons killed during the Trade Center attacks, and of course the same is true of Iraq. The U.S. also implemented various defensive maneuvers as per the directives of the PATRIOT act, the Department of Homeland Security, the 9/11 commission, and so on. And that’s about it by way of substantive responses.
Similarly, whenever Israel suffers an attack of Palestinian terrorism, Israeli Defense Forces retaliate by invading areas of Palestine in order to hunt down, kill, and round up large numbers of suspected perpetrators (or friends or family members of such) for indefinite uncharged detention and “interrogation” at one or other of the Israeli gulags. And the hundreds of checkpoints throughout the Palestinian territories, the curfews, the restrictions on Palestinian travel, and the Israeli separation wall are manifestations of the defensive maneuver response (though the wall also serves offensive purposes, which we will shortly get to). Here too the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces far exceeds the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorism. And more generally, there’s no sense in which the civilian damage due to Israel’s implementation of the above responses is “collateral”, since every Palestinian suffers directly from these measures.
The pattern is also evident in the responses by U.S. forces in Iraq to insurgent terrorist attacks, and Russian responses to Chechen terrorism.
These sorts of offensive and defensive responses are so uniformly the government response to terrorism that it might be easy to miss the fact that they do effectively nothing to discourage terrorism, and on the contrary, do a great deal to encourage it. Israel’s violent responses to Palestinian terrorism have not been effective in stopping this, and nor have been the violent U.S. responses to Iraqi terrorism. Apparently nothing could have been better for Al Qaeda recruitment than the U.S.’s brutal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. And of course we all know how well Russia's strategies for preventing Chechen terrorism is working.
Actually, I shouldn’t say that these responses (can) accomplish nothing. First, these responses seem to make some people feel as if their government is doing something to prevent further attacks. No doubt this illusion is comforting to those who are taken in by it.
Second, if the responses are directed against a relatively contained population, and are conducted with such brutality that the population is effectively destroyed (or forced to emigrate in order to survive), then it may be possible to prevent future terrorist attacks coming from that particular population in that particular place. Of course, this approach requires destroying the entire community, which might seem unfair, given that the vast majority of persons in any of the communities we have been discussing are not terrorists. But it appears to be a price some are willing to pay. So, for example, Israel and the U.S. appear to be willing to let Palestinian civil society be destroyed, as is presently happening very rapidly as a result of the incursion of the separation wall, so as to ensure that Israel will never suffer another Palestinian terrorist attack. But even these extreme measures are likely to backfire, of course. What’s far more likely to happen is that various Arab terrorist groups will pledge endless vengeance for Israel’s destruction of Palestine, and the cycle of violence will continue.
The fact that the present responses to terrorism do not work, and in fact make matters worse, is tragic, and not just because it means that more lives will continue to be lost, both to terrorism and to the brutal responses to it. It is also tragic because it is symptomatic of the unfathomable lack of wisdom that characterizes the majority of persons in power.
I am not a wise person, though I aspire to be. But I know how a wise person responds to aggression. When a wise person faces aggression, they do not immediately and blindly strike back, thus potentially initiating a cycle of endless violence and retribution. Rather, they consider why they have been struck. Have they, perhaps, done something to offend the aggressor? If so, muses the wise person, perhaps they might avoid future aggression by removing the source of the offense.
Simple observation, and potentially useful, in my view, for warding off at least some, if not all, terrorist attacks. That is to say, why not acknowledge and address those legitimate grievances of the terrorists? (Of course, it would be better if those grievances had been addressed before the terror. But better late than never, especially given the potential for future attacks.) ADDENDUM: Turns out that this common sense approach is endorsed by "specialists", and is remarkably effective in reducing terror when it is finally taken:
"There is also a broad specialist consensus on how to reduce threat of terror. It is two-pronged. Terrorists see themselves as a vanguard, seeking to mobilize others, welcoming a violent reaction that will serve their cause. The proper reaction to criminal acts is police work, which has been quite successful: in Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and elsewhere. Much more important is the broad constituency whom the terrorists seek to mobilize, people who may hate and fear them, but nevertheless see them as fighting for cause that is right and just. Here the proper response is to pay attention to their grievances, which are often legitimate and should be addressed irrespective of any connection to terror.
"There are many illustrations. England and Northern Ireland, to take a recent case. As long as London's response to IRA terror was violence, terror and support for it increased. When, finally, some attention began to be paid to legitimate grievances, it declined. Belfast is not utopia, but it is a far better place than it was a decade ago."
It is very likely that this response would be similarly effective in the cases we have been discussing. Take Palestinian terrorism, for instance. My own view is that, though horrific and reprehensible as all terrorism is, Palestinian terrorism is an unsurprising response to Israel’s illegal 37-year-long occupation of Palestine, which has involved countless well-documented atrocities and human rights abuses visited by Israelis upon Palestinians.
(Before continuing: Please spare me the right-wing talking point about how the Palestinians really don’t want peace, since they didn’t accept the Camp David Clinton-Barak proposal. As this map of what was offered to the Palestinians indicates, the ensuing separation of Palestine into three isolated bantustans in the West Bank, plus another in Gaza, would have been unworkable; see this interview with Chomsky for details. Bantustans were unacceptable in South Africa, and they are also unacceptable in Palestine. Please also spare me the right-wing talking point about how all Palestinians want to see Israel destroyed. Survey says: most don’t. The majority of Palestinians (as well as Israelis) are on board with a two-state solution. More generally, as Juan Cole points out, "If there were a Palestinian state with leaders who would certify that they are happy with Israel, then 99% of Muslims would accept that".)
Now, given that Palestinian terrorism is explicitly directed against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and associated resource theft and human rights abuses, and given that, as a matter of fact, the occupation and associated actions are illegal and immoral, then it appears that the wise course here would be for Israel to work to right the wrongs they have committed against the Palestinians, post-haste. The Geneva Accord would be a good place to start.
[ADDENDUM: A reader helpfully reminds me that I shouldn't take it as a given that the occupation of Palestine and associated appropriation or resources, etc. is immoral:
"Isn't the morality of people's aims on either side of Israel-Palestine dispute the very essence of this conundrum? If you're going to regard the morality or immorality of things as settled, for consistency you might have made this the very first of the "talking points" that you politely invited readers to indulge you in leaving out of the analysis."
My own view is that the actions of Israel vis-a-vis Palestine are immoral on any of the standard approaches to this complex concept (including deontological, consequentialist, "human fulfillment" and even "eye for an eye" morality), but I can't argue the point here, so consider the reference removed. The illegality of the occupation, theft of resources and human rights abuses is, of course, not in dispute.]
The withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories in accord with a just Israeli-Palestinian peace is, I believe, the only way that Palestinian and future Arab terrorism against Israelis will be curbed. Of course, I am not so naïve as to suggest that all terrorism directed against Israel would stop if a just peace were signed. There will always be extremists on both sides, who will attempt to impose their mad vision on the world, and probably kill a few people in the process. But crazies will always be with us, and we cannot let the fear of madmen determine our future, to the detriment of the potential happiness and fulfillment of so many.
Similarly, at least one part of the answer to why Al Qaeda attacked us 3 years ago is transparently clear, and again, it has to do with the perpetual festering thorn in the Arab side that is Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and associated thefts and human rights violations. There are other reasons, too, of course (including Bin Laden’s stated political ambitions to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and getting rid of U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, which dates back to 1991). But at least one huge source of Arab terrorist rage would be removed if Israel were to cease and desist from its brutal occupation.
As I say, it may be too late for this obvious course of wisdom to be followed. The separation wall is having immediate and devastating effects, and those who have been to Palestine recently have entered a new phase of agony and pessimism as regards the possibility of the survival of Palestinian culture and civil society. A small window of sanity is still open, wherein the thorn in the Arab side may be extracted, with some pain to both sides, no doubt, but with everyone surviving. But when the wall finishes its dirty job and the window closes, the thorn will be absorbed into militant Arab culture, there to bloom into the permanent inspiration to terror of the martyrdom of the Palestinians. I shudder to think what lies in wait for us then.
Recent Comments