Counter-terrorism

Terrorism, as discussed in my previous essay, is a weapon used in our time more and more by the weak, the alienated, the marginalized, the often unemployed or unaccomplished, the depressed,  the hurt and angry against the strong or perceived ‘cause’ of their misfortune.  The misfortune may initially be the young person’s being the target of bullying or rejection.  And bullying or rejection and consequent humiliation is often engaged in by larger, stronger, more attractive, better favored, more skilled or talented or more conforming peers or groups against one who is out-of-step or different in some way from the norm.

A push-back response by the ‘victim’ may be further retreat, or it may be eccentric appearance or behavioral changes.  Finding that they do not have a ‘voice’ or a refuge in a conventional sense they seek for some way to be heard or recognized.  They may find others who are likewise alienated and join with them for solace or refuge.  It may be a group as small as just a friend or two.  Or it may be a gang, or a faction or a movement—someone or some thing that has identity, resources, or momentum, or a plan that has room for them to fit in.  They might become part of a demonstration to be ‘heard’ in their frustration.  They might become a ‘foot soldier’ in a cause.

Or they may choose more extreme measures.

Through the media or the grapevine they may learn about someone who has been recognized, become cause celebre or even ‘martyred,’ and  choose to copy their act.  Or, they might be recruited by agents or representatives of the larger group. 

The ‘victim’ or ‘victims,’ if they can find, make, or steal a weapon may resort to a terrorist act to hurt the person or class of persons or values of the perceived perpetrator. The bigger the ‘gun’—Kalashnikov, pipe bomb, train derailment, airplane hijacking, germ-warfare canister, etc., or more heinous the outcome, the more perceived satisfaction—and payback—as viewed by the perpetrator. 

   

Terrorism is engaged in primarily by young men (although more and more by young women who may have more real cause for redress); it is their ‘message’ sent in extremity.  It is a last-resort tactic that is effective in that it does cause terror, fear, and reactionary response in its target; it often also causes the demise of the terrorist himself.   It is employed in many ways: cyber threats, individual acts of physical violence, torture, kidnapping; larger acts such as suicide bombing or by planting bombs, or shooting up public places with no regard for the innocent; or in large acts of public mayhem—war and the like but without the ‘rules,’ goals or conventions of war. 

Society’s response is, of necessity, a crime-and-justice response. A huge,expensive, counter-terrorist apparatus of police, military, intelligence (FBI, CIA, TSA) and the like has been created to deal with these incidents. However, if the police or military response is too severe it is likely to backfire.  

  

                      Another approach to the War on Terror

But there may be another front on the ‘war on terror.’

I think that peace-loving people or societies can do pre-emptive acts to ‘defuse,’ or better yet prevent, the potential terrorist from reaching such a state of desperate alienation.   American philosopher Henry David Thoreau sagely observed : “For every hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.” Our current ‘War against terror’ may be simply a war against the ‘leaves of evil.’ There are always ‘roots.’

As a single-pronged approach to countering terrorism I do not think it is enough.  ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ will, as Tevye observed in Fiddler on the Roof, probably just leave both parties blind and toothless.  We can look at the ‘roots’ of the violence and address them if we are in any way a part of the problem.  We, individually, can look inward before we are forced to react outwardly. 

I like and resonate to two thoughts expressed by President George H. W. Bush that could be foundational as a new paradigm for a counter-terrorist approach:

·        “It means teaching troubled children through your presen[ce] that there’s such a thing as reliable love.  Some would say it’s soft and insufficiently tough to care about these things.  But where is it written that we must act as if we do not care, as if we are not moved?  Well I am moved.  I want a kinder, and gentler nation.”

·        “America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle.  We as a people have such a purpose today.  It is to make kinder the face of the Nation and gentler the face of the world.  [We can be] a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.”

Building on such a lofty national identity and approach to the problem I submit a few ideas as part of an expanded national conversation to reduce terrorism:

Ø Be a friend to the friendless who crosses your path, or who is in your school class or workplace or neighborhood.  Be a light to help guide the path of one who feels alienated--not a blowtorch to burn up the last shred of their self-esteem.  Brook no tolerance for bullying.

Ø Consider that the grievances against ‘the West’ by the Jihadists of the Middle East are pretty much the same as those tragically expressed by our own movie theater or school shooters: feeling marginalized or powerless against those who hold the power or position and who feel they have been injured in some way.  Give all people a hope that can be heard by us and an assurance that their voice, expressed by them in a civil way, can be heard by us much better in respectful dialogue than by the sound of a bomb or a burst from their automatic rifle.  Listen to them with your heart as well as with your ears.  

Ø We as a people can take care not to be ‘Ugly Americans’ (see The Ugly American by Burdick and Lederer, 1958) through arrogance, decadence, or treating others marginally—whether at home, in our schools, neighborhoods, in our entertainment, or when we are abroad.

Ø We can stay out of places where we are not invited or welcomed—where we do not or cannot respect others’ values, lifestyle, government or religion.

Ø If we think to entangle ourselves in others’ countries’ affairs we must be invited in. Unless we have, or have solid intelligence of an impending attack against us that presents a clear and compelling national-security reason to do so (or to remain) involvement must be approved by a majority (perhaps even a 2/3 majority) of the citizens of our own country as expressed by our elected representatives.  We need to mind our own business more than we have. The executive branch of government is not higher than the representative branch.   A house divided against itself will not stand. 

Ø We must never be hypocrites to our covenants or values (especially historical values) or to the laws and country to which we pledge allegiance.

Ø Make it more difficult for would-be-terrorists to get the material or weapons to carry out their atrocities. 

Ø Stay vigilant and support a strong domestic and national defense.