IP: another view -- The Goals of Terrorism

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:43:07 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu (Dave Farber), freematt () coil com (Matthew Gaylor),
>    Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
> From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com>
> Subject: Re: The Goals of Terrorism
>
> > The author of the following is a former Regius Professor of Modern History at
> > Oxford University.
> >
> > The (London) Times
> > FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 14 2001
> > Sir Michael Howard
> >
> > Terrorism has always fed off its response:  An indiscriminate American
> > reaction would only reinforce her enemies.
> >
> > It is not surprising that in the immediate aftermath of the most terrible
> > terrorist outrage in recorded history, public figures from President Bush
> > down should have made statements that hardly stand up to critical 
> > examination.
> >
> > One is that the attacks are "cowardly", though it takes a very remarkable
> > kind of cowardice to face the certain death that confronted the hijackers.
> > Another is that the attacks required resources that could only have been 
> > provided
> > with the support of "rogue states", although it is not evident that they
> > needed anything more than good organization, access to open information
> > about airline schedules, a dozen people prepared to die for their cause,
> > and a phenomenal amount of luck.
> >
> > The most serious misconception however was that shown by Mr Bush when he
> > suggested that the aim of the terrorists was to push the United States into
> > "chaos and surrender". The history of terrorism suggests that their
> > objective was rather different; and that they are well on the way to
> > achieving it.   "Terrorism" is itself simply a technique for waging war, so
> > it makes little sense to talk about "waging war" against it. For small, weak
> > "non-state actors", it is usually the only means available. First developed
> > by revolutionaries in tsarist Russia in the 1870s, it was rapidly adopted by
> > Armenians and Macedonians in the Ottoman Empire, by Irish and Indians in 
> > the British
> > Empire, and anarchists everywhere in Western Europe and the United States.
> >
> > The preferred technique was assassination of rulers and statesmen, combined
> > with bomb attacks on public buildings. There were three principal
> > objectives. One was  self advertisement - what was called "Propaganda of
> > the Deed" - to show the world that the group existed and was ruthless in its
> > determination to achieve its ends. The second was to demoralize the
> > government and its supporters. And the third was to provoke the government
> > into such savage acts of suppression that it forfeited public support and
> > awoke popular and international sympathy for the revolutionary cause. This
> > was known as a "strategy of provocation".
> >
> > The record of success was patchy. The Turkish reaction to "provocation" by
> > the Armenians was so savage as almost to eliminate them from history, but
> > it created universal horror in the process. In Russia the main consequence
> > of suppression was fatally to delay liberal reform. In the stable and open
> > societies of the West, terrorist activities were no more than nasty
> > footnotes except perhaps in Ireland. But even there it was not "Fenian
> > atrocities" but the open challenge of the 1916 rebellion that provoked
> > British overreaction and led to Irish independence.
> >
> > But terrorism remained, and remains, the weapon of the weak and highly
> > motivated, and "globalism" has provided its practitioners with new
> > opportunities, both for evasion and for propaganda.   "Globalism" has also
> > changed their target. In the 19th and 20th centuries terrorism was
> > primarily used either to fight internal oppression or to achieve national
> > independence. In Western Europe and the United States, revolutionary
> > groups saw it as an instrument in the class struggle, but mainline
> > Marxists rejected it as counter-productive. In the second half of the 20th
> > century it re-emerged; briefly as the weapon of young bourgeois idealists
> > in the West, but more seriously as the weapon of the Palestinian
> > dispossessed. Although they commanded the sympathy of much of the Arab and
> > Islamic world, the Palestinians had no hope of overcoming the Israelis so 
> > long as the latter
> > were supported by America. And in a confrontation with the United States
> > they had no lack of allies among those who resented its power, its
> > predominance, and the relentless spread of a culture that threatened so
> > many indigenous values.
> >
> > The United States and its allies have declared that they are at war with
> > "terrorism", by which they mean, presumably, those who use it. As a figure
> > of speech, this is unhelpful and misleading. It implies a conflict with an
> > adversary who can be easily identified and ultimately "defeated". The
> > general assumption - and indeed hope - is that the enemy can indeed be
> > identified in the person of Osama bin Laden, and that military measures can
> > destroy him and his organization as "the free world" destroyed Hitler. But
> > there is clearly in the United States an understandable desire, not so much
> > to "bring him to justice" as to wreak vengeance on all those who seem to
> > support him: to deal such blows to the actual or perceived enemies of
> > America that no one will ever dare to attack them in such a fashion again.
> >
> > If this view were to prevail, "the strategy of provocation" would have won,
> > and Mr Bush would be playing out the script written for him by the
> > terrorists themselves. The poor man has been confronted with perhaps the
> > most agonizing choice that has faced an American President. The domestic
> > pressure on him to respond in kind, and reply to terror with terror, must
> > be overwhelming; but were he to do so he would only multiply the number
> > of enemies of the United States throughout the world. To do nothing is
> > unthinkable; but how to find a measured, appropriate reply?  For the United
> > States is not "at war" in any recognizable sense of the word - certainly not
> > a war that can be "won". It is confronted with a hideous international crime,
> > whose perpetrators must if possible be identified,  isolated, and destroyed,
> > but in such a way that does not breed even greater hatred  of the United 
> > States
> > and even more martyrs willing to lay down their lives in the struggle 
> > against the
> > Great Satan.
> >
> > The best service that America's allies can now render is to strengthen
> > those voices within the President's entourage who are urging moderation,
> > and ensure that the terrorists' strategy of provocation will not achieve
> > its object.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/