Boss got you down? Visit "Working In These Times," our new workers' rights blog.
PrintDiscuss
Views » October 29, 2001

Say No to War

By Joel Bleifuss

Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller

What would be a sensible way for the United States to respond to the attacks of September 11? Though few signs of sense are to be found in the belligerent Beltway, common sense and human decency provide useful guideposts. The U.S. response should be based on the proposition that all human life is equally precious. To bomb Afghanistan and kill innocent people to get Osama bin Laden and the Taliban would be immoral. Strategically, it would be folly. Killing civilians in a retaliatory strike would only stoke the ranks of Islamic fundamentalist extremists across the Muslim world. Our allies understand this and have cautioned against such an indiscriminate response.

Further, bombing Afghanistan would truly escalate the September 11 attacks to the level of a war. Absent such bombing, talk of war is nonsense. We don’t need a war on terrorism—a war some pundits have morphed into World War III. Going to war may motivate Americans on the home front and unite the country, but it will elicit the same response from those we attack. Indeed, war (did someone say “crusade”?) ratchets up the conflict, turns criminals into warriors (in this case holy ones) and sets the stage for a never ending series of attacks and counterattacks, for death and more death.

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are more properly described as horrendous criminal acts. With such an understanding we could confront bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization as we would domestic terrorists. Of course, al-Qaeda, with branches in dozens of countries, operates on a worldwide scale. What is needed is a global, unified response to these criminals, and the very real threat they pose, preferably under the umbrella of the United Nations. Such a collective response could deploy the expertise of the world’s military, police and intelligence communities and be guided by seasoned world statesmen.

In formulating a united international strategy to stop al-Qaeda, we could learn lessons from how other nations have coped with homegrown terrorism. Britain doesn’t bomb areas of Belfast to counter terrorist acts by extremist Republicans and Unionists. Spain doesn’t bomb Bilbao to get ETA, the Basque separatists. Progress in these ongoing campaigns against terrorism has come only when the Spanish and British governments have acknowledged and addressed the legitimate grievances of historically oppressed peopleÇÇand reined in out-of-control security forces.

Israel also provides us with a textbook case on how to deal with terrorists. Under Yitzhak Rabin, for a time, peace seemed possible despite the ongoing threat of suicide bombers. The policies of the Ariel Sharon government, endorsed by the United States with its silence—policies that include the bombardment of Palestinian neighborhoods—have undone what progress was made. Similarly, we can learn what not to do by examining Russia’s brutal suppression of the Chechen rebellion.

Unfortunately, the track record of Bush’s foreign policy team, veterans of the war on communism, does not inspire confidence. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rabidly opposed d»tente with the Soviet Union. The future U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte (his nomination slipped through committee after the attacks), turned a blind eye to state-sponsored death squads trained by the CIA when he was ambassador to Honduras. And Secretary of State Colin Powell (now in the administration’s moderate minority) burned Vietnamese peasants out of their huts, “starting the blaze with Rooson and Zippo lighters,” as he recalled his autobiography.

In this atmosphere of public apprehension and fear, the terrorist threat, like the communist menace of yore, has given the Bush administration carte blanche to do whatever it likes. The war on communism brought with it myriad atrocities—atrocities that moved Congress to put limitations on U.S. intelligence agencies. In this so-called War on Terrorism, those controls are now heading for the bonfire.

In the enveloping darkness, it’s time for those of us who doubt the wisdom of such actions to speak out.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Joel Bleifuss is the editor and publisher of In These Times, where he has worked as an investigative reporter, columnist and editor since 1986. He is on the board of the Institute for Public Affairs, which publishes In These Times.

More information about Joel Bleifuss
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
Appeared in the October 29, 2001 Issue
Also by Joel Bleifuss
  • Block ’Em, Sock ’Em
    Across the country progressive groups are mobilizing to support legislative initiatives, but to… morePosted on July 9, 2009
  • Buy Back Our Government
    Porn rentals, duck islands and moat-cleaning are among the frivolities British members of… morePosted on June 11, 2009
  • A Specter is Haunting Dems
    Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) had every reason to free himself from the wing… morePosted on May 12, 2009
  • Bailout Bandits
    In these days of "bank stablization plans" (bailouts for fat cats) and "overseas… morePosted on April 16, 2009
  • Building Utopia
    A new documentary profiles the rise and fall of a Depression-era utopian experiment in the Bronx.Posted on April 13, 2009
If you like what you're reading, why not help pay for it?
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS