The War On Terror: Defined [Archive]

Shalrirorchia

18-01-2007, 21:56

For those of us who are major science fiction fans, the question: "What do you want?" may ring a bell. If you've ever watched Babylon 5, the question is posed repeatedly over the course of the series by Mr. Morden, one of the show's chief villains. "What do you want?" is not as simple a question as it might immediately seem to be. It is simultaneously both the opposite of and the companion question to Mr. Morden's major enemies in the show, the Vorlons (the Vorlon's question is inevitably: "Who are you?").

All Americans need to be asking themselves "Who are you?" and "What do you want?" at this moment in our history. They should be asking these questions because it is impossible to decide where you want to go until you know where you are starting off at. On the one hand, we have a reputation for being the defenders of liberty, the land of opportunity, and the advocates of freedom. At the same time, we are propping up dictatorial regimes around the world because it serves our short-term interests, we are allowing the American Dream to slip out of the reach of millions of Americans, and we are systematically dismembering the very freedoms that we claim to be protecting in the name of the War on Terror. In short, our actions directly contradict our words.

For students of history, this should not be anything new. American history, even contemporary history, is rife with contradiction. How many military dictatorships did the United States back up between 1945 and the present because it served our national interests (especially the fight against Communism)? More importantly, how many of those decisions turned out to be bad for us in the long run?

Case in point: Iran. Prior to the revolution that swept extremist clerics into power, the United Kingdom (and later the United States) had a long history of interference in Iranian affairs for their own gain. At one time, Britain effectively owned the entire Iranian oil industry. The oil was specifically held by a company called the AIOC or Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (a company that continues to exist today under the name British Petroleum or BP)...and the Anglo had far greater emphasis than the Iranian. AIOC's books were closed to the Iranian government, and Britain at one point was taking 85% of the profits from the oil fields. But this state of affairs soon changed...Iran was turning from monarchy towards democracy. In 1951, the Iranian Parliament nationalized the oil facilities (in other words, they destroyed the British monopoly). Britain reacted understandably strongly, using their influence to prevent Iran from actually selling its' oil. In addition, the British falsely informed the United States that Iran's democratically-elected leader, Prime Minister Mossadegh, was favoring alliance with the Soviet Union. In the postwar climate of rabid anti-communism that prevailed within the U.S., the threat of another nation entering the communist bloc was unthinkable. CIA and its' British counterpart, MI6, overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and re-installed the Shah as supreme leader of Iran...an act which would later lead directly to the Revolution of 1979 and the rise of the radical clerical government. As if this was not bad enough, the United States then proceeded to support Saddam Hussein's Iraq when that country invaded Iran in 1980, a move which consolidated Iranian hostility towards the United States if it hadn't been already. Today's nuclear standoff with Iran is partly a result of poor long-term planning by U.S. foreign policymakers.

We are making very much the same type of mistakes today, providing support to regimes that are willing to act as U.S. proxies around the world. In Africa, Ethiopian troops have now invaded Somalia in order to battle Islamic extremists in the region; Ethiopia is widely thought to be acting as a proxy for the United States. In Pakistan, the U.S. is supporting a military dictator because he is a vocal advocate of the War on Terror in that region. These are but a few examples.

Criticism of the methods used in the War on Terror should not be mistaken for criticism of the War itself. Terrorists represent a real and serious danger to American life, liberty, and property. They are an enemy unlike any other we have ever faced. But before we begin executing policies that will continue to have consequences for decades down the road, we Americans should seriously stop and consider WHAT it is we wish to accomplish, and how far we are willing to go to accomplish our goals. It is easy enough for proponents of the war to say, "We'll do whatever it takes". But the price of such a blank check might bankrupt the moral accounts of this republic. If we are indeed the defender of liberty, there are steps that we should not and can not take without directly contradicting ourselves. When we have a President who is unwilling to observe the rule of law, who is willing to lie to the American public in order to promote a war in Iraq, then the moral base of our conflict against terrorism is seriously compromised. Benjamin Franklin himself is quoted as saying, "Those who would give a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and shall lose both." If we are willing to give the President unfettered powers to wage war and policy without checks and balances by the electorate and their representatives, then we have lost ourselves and our identity as Americans.

The War on Terror cannot be won solely with bullets and bombs. It requires a broad strategy that has so far not been revealed by anyone within the Bush Administration. To believe that force and force alone can win this war is ignorant. To prosecute the War with nothing but force is futile. The plan for victory in the War on Terror must include a strike to the very base of terrorism; in order to defeat terrorism, you must discover the social conditions generating terrorists and destroy those causes.

Part of the War's nature revolves around oil, and our dependence on it. The United States must lead the way to a future in which we are not slaves to oil. We must invest in some grand, New Deal-style national project to find and exploit alternative energy sources. The entire energy infrastructure of the United States is going to have to be converted at some point to run on something other than oil; there is a finite amount of oil in the world. We will not be able to rely on it forever. Furthermore, revenue from oil sales props up the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East and stifles political and social development. Every time we fill up our gas tanks, we are perpetuating a terrible cycle. In order to defeat terrorism, you are going to have to be able to play a free diplomatic hand in the Middle East...and you will never be able to do that while we are addicted to oil.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians must also be resolved. So long as there is no peace in Israel, it will continue to serve as a rallying cry for terrorists. The act of forging peace will no doubt be costly for Israel, the Palestinians, the United Nations, and the United States. But at some point we must all agree to pay that price, or the cycle of violence will never end, and we will never break the back of terrorism.

We must learn from our historical mistakes. We must not meddle in others' affairs if we can avoid it.

We must rebuild our alliances with Europe and the rest of the free world, alliances that were cast aside by President Bush.

We must increase the numbers and reach of U.S. special forces, so that when military action is required that we can strike immediately and hard at our enemies.

We must create policies based on fact, not on ideology.

We must once again unite Americans behind a plan for victory.

This is a conflict we will doubtlessly be fighting for years to come in one way or another. But I think it is a conflict that can be won, because anything that Man can make, Man can also unmake. In time, if we are smarter, quicker, and better-supported, we can restore some type of peace to this world. But before we do any of this, we need to step back and ask ourselves what it really means to be American. We need to stop and think about who we are, and what we want.

NationStates Jolt Archive

The War On Terror: Defined