Liberty For Not-All: Rethinking "The Global War on Terror"

The massive suicide bomb that went off in front of a Marriott hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing more than 50, including the Czech ambassador, reminds us that terrorism continues as a serious trans-national threat. From Oklahoma City to Madrid to Bali, it's ominously easy to set off a bomb.

And yet a wrong-headed idea has infiltrated into our thinking: the idea that the cure for terrorism is freedom. President Bush, for example, said in May to the Israeli Knesset, "This fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century." Well, with all due respect, that's simply not true. Freedom yields peace only for those who wish to be peaceable. For those who don't wish to be peaceable, freedom is a license to kill. So to deal with them, other steps must be taken--stern steps.

We can begin by remembering that terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tactic--a way for people to kill other people. So the cure for terroristic deeds is not freedom, it is control.

North Korea, a controlled state, does not have a terrorism problem. Pakistan, a half-controlled/half-anarchic democracy, does have a terrorism problem. And the U.S. is closer to Pakistan than it is to North Korea.

Now in the long run, it can be argued that freedom leads to bourgeois satisfaction and then to non-violence--but that's an issue for the long run.

In the short run, Pakistan has a big problem, and it will be solved, if it is solved, through tough internal security measures. And by the way, that's also true of Afghanistan. The neo-Taliban killers in that country don't need more freedom; peace-minded Afghans need to be rid of the Taliban, by any means necessary.

Here in America, the problem is not that severe. We have crime, but not much terrorism. Not many American have AK-47s and an opium trade to protect, and mercifully, few, if any, are willing to die for a political cause. So when Rudy Giuliani cleaned up Times Square in the 90s, he suffered from lawsuits, not suicide bombers. But nonetheless, Giuliani's method could be considered illiberal: He did not seek to empower pimps and crack dealers, he disempowered them.

These days, our beloved Transportation Security Administration has taken Giuliani-ism to an extreme. TSA doesn't seek to listen to airline travelers, it seeks to humiliate them. Old or young, male or female, dangerous or not, you must take your shoes off, empty out your pockets, and go through the metal detectors repeatedly. But give TSA its due: Blunt instruments that they are, these techniques have succeeded. Scrutiny, backed up by force, works.

But in the meantime, the latest bombing in Pakistan, piled on other recent incidents, from Turkey to India, should remind us that making and detonating a lethal bomb is not a difficult technical challenge. If Timothy McVeigh could do it in 1995, lots of people can do it in 2008--and they do. Warfare has been particle-ized, down to the individual level, and so defenses must be just as granulated.

We need all the tools we can get to fight terror, including judicious Israeli-style profiling. And we need a comprehensive international approach to counter-terrorism, beyond Interpol. Even before 9-11, Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) had broached the idea of a multilateral counter-terror organization.

But creating a NATO-like international alliance against terror, valuable as that would be, will not save us from an even more painful truth: If we wish to be safe, or safer, we have to make fundamental readjustments in the security of our public places and facilities. Targets that are now judged to be "soft" must be made "hard."

In the wake of the Pakistan Marriott bombing, for example, every hotelier in the world--except maybe in North Korea--is dutybound to reexamine security procedures.

Does that mean frisking guests, searching their cars, and building blast walls? In some places, it already does. But other counter-terror tools can be improved, such as detectors for explosives and radiation. And those sensing tools can and should be applied to cities, roadways, and, most of all, borders.

These changes are difficult to achieve. They are costly--and disturbing.

But the alternative is worse, because some people can never be entrusted with "freedom." And so the rest of us will have to watch them--and do what we must to thwart them.

Comments

[ChocoCat66]

"But give TSA its due: Blunt instruments that they are, these techniques have succeeded." So you want to give the TSA credit for nothing? This is what is wrong with this debate, there is no debate, there is simply mindless assumption. Number one, there was no security breach on 9/11, boxcutters were allowed on planes, why is this so hard to accept? NO SECURITY BREACH. Number two, if you want to give TSA credit for stopping terrorism, let us know what attack they stopped, what terrorist has been stopped and tried and convicted? This entire argument is based in false testimony that we have saved ourselves from attacks since 9/11. Where is the evidence? On 9/11 19 men with boxcutters changed the world? Nope. We changed the world, because we could not believe that 19 men with boxcutters could have done this, it had to be bigger, this had to be a battle on a larger war, a larger war we could win. We redefined what happened so that there was some way to win. We made AQ bigger than 19 men with boxcutters, because we could't defeat those that attacks us, and we could settle for nothing less than victory. So we invented 'sleeper cells' and hysterically claimed that 'you're either for us, or against us', effectively elevating a fringe group of extremists to a powerful global threat. 19 men with boxcutters didnt change anything. AQ was never the omnipotent threat we believed they were.

[Snowball]

Pardon me, but Pakistan's problems with extremism began when Musharraf overthrew a democratic system in 1999. It was the end of freedom for Pakistanis that was the medium that bred fundamentalism and extremism there. True, once extremism is out of the bottle, it's hard to put it back in, but clamping down on all the people and installing a ruling elite is not the answer. True, N. Korea has no terrorism, as far as we know, but take a look at China, they do.

[appleknocker]

Has it occurred to anyone that a better "cure for terroristic deeds" might be to stop provoking them? Naaah.

[darker]

YES, STOP VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS if you want to DISCOURAGE terrorism.

[Infokronea]

You're right about the need for the correct tools. Unfortunately, we will have to wait until there is a new administration in the White House to get them. Just so you know, here’s a list. We need tools that include an accurate and comprehensive database, not that piece of garbage we are forced to rely on at present that was generated by commercial contractors to service commercial ends. We need tools that stop telling people that Islam is the number one threat to civilization when the number one threat is actually global destabilization generated by rapacious corporate dinosaurs that cannot function without the use of slave labor and resources obtained for a fraction of their actual worth. We need tools that support real National Security, which is to say, tools that support the Constitution and our civil liberties, maintain a healthy environment, and generate an international marketplace that does not include super predators armed with the business philosophy of a swarm of locusts. Please vote in November so we can have those tools as quickly as possible, please!

[JinChicago]

freedom is another word for nothing else to loose....

sage wisdom in song form. gotta love the 60's. too bad the fruit of that tree was stiffled.

[ROFLMAO]

do you know the difference between loose and lose? If not, you are a looser...

[Trapper439]

Freedom is just a word.

A word that is repeated incessantly by US Politicians, especially by those of a conservative bent.

How is the rest of the West not "free".

Please, someone tell me.

I've lived in the US, and I feel a helluva lot more "free" where I am, thank-you-­very-much.

[WoodyCPM]

God forbid we should try to find out what's breeding such violent behavior and then try to address the root causes of terrorism. This isn't therapy, this is part what used to be called 'diplomacy.' Security? We had a perfectly well functioning security apparatus BEFORE 9/11, the Bush Administration just didn't pay any attention to what it was saying until it was too late. Imposing a police state as the fundamental means for protecting innocent citizens from terrorist attacks is to surrender to the terrorists. We're getting to have here the kind of police structure and repressive society that the United States has supported around the world for a 100 years in all the anti-democratic governments our tax dollars have paid for. Then we wonder why they hate us.

[rubinoff]

...and we don't own the world, but some of the bullies 'think' they do.

[JimReed]

By using the terror war as a reason for preemptive war against a country not a threat we have created enemies, they have multiplied because they see us as the agressor and a threat to peace. When you look at who profits it does seem the war is not being fought to protect America, it is being fought to protect the interests of the rich. It is harming America in many ways, militarily, economic, and moral. We might end up protecting the oil, but that brings high gas prices to Americans and high profits to the owners.

[rubinoff]

say it,.... Loud.

[Shozen]

The cliche "Those who give up freedom for security deserve (and eventually get) neither" should come to mind reading this opinion.

[katzooks]

What Americans keep failing to understand is that the 'terrorists' don't hate our freedom. They hate our politics. They hate our special ops and covert wars we've seeded over the entire planet (or, at least wherever there is oil to be drilled or a pipeline to be laid). They hate our invasions and the puppet regimes we install under the guise of democracy, or wars against drugs, or some b.s. humanitarian effort, when it's about swallowing-up territory and oil. They hate that we secretly climb into bed with the baddest of bad guys -- our ends always justifying our means -- then throw them away like used condoms when we're done (an especially powerful method for making enemies).

What Americans also don't understand (and I can hardly blame them, it's so outrageous as to be unbelievable) is that our special ops and covert wars fly under many false flags, including staged attacks designed to look like terrorist attacks or insurgent uprisings, to elicit the exact responses you have just given and received in the wake of your thoughtful post, "Liberty for Not-All: Re-thinking the Global War on Terror."

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. Until we (Americans) acknowledge the real roots of terrorism, our efforts to stop terrorism are nothing more than tilting at windmills. These efforts must begin with our choice of leaders, our oversight into their activities, and insisting our voices be heard. Otherwise, we're complicitous.

[Whinger]

The voice of reason and common sense!

[rubinoff]

...and the ordinary citizens are living in one kinda fear or another.

[MsJezebel]

Of course, why didn't I think of that. Yes, let us use North Korea as an example, we should be more like them. Give up all my freedom to leviathan in exchange for safety what a great idea. Excuse me, Mr. Pinkerton, but your ideas are full of FAIL! You might as well just put up a giant banner that says, "Congrats, Bin Laden, you win!"

[StillAmused]

"But give TSA its due: Blunt instruments that they are, these techniques have succeeded. Scrutiny, backed up by force, works."

Prove it!

Put another way, exactly what prevented widespread airline-based terrorism BEFORE this lumbering, data-suffocated, ham-handed bureaucracy was created? This is the same juvenile reasoning which holds that the U.S. hasn't suffered another major terrorist attack since 2001 because George W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq.

All of which displays the staggering inability of so many commentators to accept a simple, harsh reality: the 'attacks' of 9/11 were carried out by 19 religious zealots, controlled and funded by a small handful of Islamic extremists, who came from HERE -- Boston, Newark and D.C. -- thanks to a breakdown in vigilance and coordination between immigration, intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

There have been no alien landings on the National Mall, either. Who gets the credit?

[StillAmused]

... and, by the way, there IS no "global war on terror", any more than there is a "global war on auto theft", a "global war on armed robbery" or a "global war on shoplifting". Catchy phrase, pushes all the right buttons of uninformed goobers, but a sheer (and meaningless) PR invention that serves as a palatable wrapper for toxic neocon ideology.

[rubinoff]

...and let's not forget the fake war on drugs.

[Mr Grey]

Since my first reply did not make the cut, just let me say this ... America is in meltdown. The cause of this meltdown is not drugs, terrorism or any other bogeyman meant to frighten us. It is because the haves do not mind stepping on the have-nots to get what they want. They get what they what, when they want and the rest of us be damned. They get away with murder. They have murdered the rule of law, the rules of justice and shred the Constitution all in the name of a so called better world. Better for whom? Better for them. When they fail, they hit the golden parachute. When we lesser mortals fail, we hit bottom.

Congress will follow along in lockstep with the bailout plan, because their friends are the haves, and those in greatest need, the have-nots just don't have the big money they need to get our elected leaders to grow a backbone and do the right thing. So, stop whining, get over it, and open your wallets Big Business needs our help, like or not. After all greed is good, greed is great, we trillions, pass the plate.

[Aaror]

The three major terror attacks in my memory (two on the trade centers, one in Oklahoma) killed fewer people than we lose every year to drunk drivers or cigarettes. The resources spent on this threat should be proportionate to the dangers, which are, frankly, minimal.
With all due respect and sympathy to those who lost loved ones in those attacks, we as a nation need to get over it and become a free nation again. It is sad that we lost the war on terror, but we did.
We lost the war on terror when we started curtailing freedoms just like Bin Ladin wanted, when we made more foes in the middle east just like Bin Ladin wanted, when we poured lives and treasure into the middle east just like...well, you get the idea.
The TSA is a joke, I can think of 2 ways to bypass them right now, lets see, use plastic explosive threads to weave a jacket lining, with a watch as the detonator, or, hmm, just put the bomb in front of the TSA scanners, where hundreds of people are cued in line. They don't keep anyone safe, they only make us think we are safe.
We need to grow a spine, live our lives in freedom, and actually beat the terrorists.

[Sundialsvc4]

Sacco and Vanzetti were (wrongfully) accused of being "anarchists." On Wall Street today the J. P. Morgan building's stone facade is deeply pockmarked from an "anarchist" bomb. That's the word we used for terrorism in those days.

"Terrorism," then, has always been with us. What's been newly added are the two words, "Global War (on)." And that, unfortunately, is what it's really all about: Global War.

Our country exports about $2 trillion worth of weapons and related technology each year, funding and supplying both sides of any convenient conflict. The effort is both deliberate and vast. A great many high-society party in the District is funded by it. Human nature has not changed in the slightest with regard to its bloody fundamentals.

But: "those who live by the Sword shall die by it." That's not prophecy: that's another succinct, even poetic, summary of human nature and its consequences.

[Mr Grey]

Indeed.

[UKVisitor]

Sorry Mr Pinkerton, the cure sounds worse than the disease!

[Grundibular]

"terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tactic--a way for people to kill other people"

The bomb itself is "a way for people to kill other people". Terrorism itself is different as illustrated by numerous IRA (and other) attacks which purposely caused no fatalities.

The killing is a by-product of the primary goal: terror in those left to deal with the aftermath and watch it on the news. Al Queda and their ilk may cite bloody massacres of civilians as "victories" as much as they rejoice in the terror that is induced. The primary goal is nonetheless NOT the 50/100/3000 deaths and rather the widespread panic/terr­or/notorie­ty that is instilled in a population.

More ordinary people in Islamabad now fear their fundamentalist neighbours more than they did yesterday, making them more likely to cede to their demands - unreasonable and incomprehensible though they might be.

[Radarman]

The official apology from the I.R.A issued in 2002.

''We offer our sincere apologies and condolences'' to the families of ''noncombatants,'' the group said. Of the 1,800 people killed by the I.R.A. since the late 1960's, about 650 were civilians rather than members of security forces or paramilitary organizations.

Thank goodness they weren't really trying to kill anyone. And well they ARE sorry, so I guess that's ok then.