Winning an Asymmetrical War
While much of the mainstream media has treated these horrific assaults as a fundamentally distinct and different type of warfare, suiciders are not new, nor are they unfamiliar. We need only look to our own history to understand suicide tactics and learn what we can do to stop suiciders or -- at a minimum -- to render them ineffective.
In the final months of World War II, the Japanese began an experiment in asymmetrical warfare which terrified Americans and sowed the seeds for a new kind of terror attack that has continued to this day, from Manhattan to Madrid to Mumbai.
Japan's new tactic was suicide bombing. It became the great leveler of the Pacific War. Suicide missions had already been used in warfare, most often as a tactical expedient on the battlefield -- one thinks of a soldier diving upon a live hand-grenade to protect his comrades. But these selfless deeds remained isolated incidents, with the critical difference that survival, however unlikely, was a possibility.
But the new Japanese strategy was profoundly different. For the first time in history, Japan's leaders were sending their young pilots out on kamikaze missions, whose success required the pilots' death.
Japan's embrace of this tactic shocked and terrified their targets. As the High Command well understood - and as those who currently employ suicide tactics fully understand - the targets were not the brave sailors and soldiers who were directly affected by these violent attacks but, rather, the civilian population back home.
Japan's leaders hoped their suicide strategy would convince America that the two peoples were fundamentally different -- that they valued religion and human life so differently that a military invasion would be impossible.
Yet American leaders refused to capitulate to the psychological impact of these "special" assaults. Far from halting the American advance, the suiciders hardened American resolve. We responded soberly to the attacks, treating them simply as one more desperate, failing tactic, from a failed regime, soon to be defeated. Quickly fading from the front pages, suicide tactics wound up a footnote to the kamikaze battles.
Japan's suicide tactics forced each sailor in the Pacific to confront his own life and death but, quickly, each man learned to live with the fear. This is the task of leadership. President Roosevelt could have capitulated to the spread of terror from the suiciders. Instead, he led Americans beyond fear. The Israelis have lived with suicide bombings now for a generation. They go about their lives without being consumed by fear or fascination.
Since 2001, though, American leaders have allowed the suiciders to define the struggle. The radical Islamists have attempted to convince Americans that they too are "different," and therefore cannot be defeated. By defining this as a special war, (one which requires altering the Constitution) the Bush administration became complicit in the strategy of Al Qaeda. It is not the bombs of the suiciders but our reaction to these eruptions which determines victory.
Last week, the world stood still as ten terrorists holed up in Mumbai, murdered hostages. The deaths of those innocents is a tragedy, but the fact that ten miscreants could gather the attention of media around the world for three straight days, underscores a fundamental failure of leadership and of the free press. The press, now driven by advertising revenue has become more sensational than informative.
Franklin Roosevelt told Americans that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, and with those strong words, combined by communal effort, he calmed our fears and galvanized the United States to defeat Japan. Americans can live, even comfortably, with danger.
We need someone to teach us how to do that again. We need a president who will no longer allow the terrorists to terrorize us. The media got it wrong. What the terrorists did in Mumbai does not matter nearly as much as how we (and India and Pakistan) respond to what they did.There may be no end to the war on terror, but we can end the terror itself.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Certainly the Bush administration made the terrorists out to be more potent than they were simply as leverage to gab power. More over, it was Bush's typical laziness to head off the terrorist in the first place, prior to 9/11, that got the ball rounding down hill. He made the mess; he defined it in an absurd way; and he combated it to no good en--a bull in a China shop "leadershi
One of the "peoples that pioneered assymetric warfare" was the fledgling US of A fighting the British. Seems to me the Japanese Empire wasn't all that assymetric. The anarchists of the 19th century are the true ancestors of this era's terrorists, and they use the same tactics: civilians blowing up civilians by passing unnoticed among them. It is "war" without the soldiers, and that's what makes it so hard to wage militarily. I think one of Obama's many mandates is to call the neocons out on their grotesque cowardice regarding terrorism. The right wing big mouths talk soooo tough, but they are ripping the constitution to shreds in hope that this will somehow placate the bad guys and they'll be safe in their little bunkers. Torture is the refuge of cowards. Remember the British in WWII? Their stoicism in the face of nightly bombings should be our touchstone. If we aspired to half of their courage, we'd be doing a fine thing. Let Obama call us to those better angels. The righties used to say "better dead than red" when it came to Communism. Now they're saying "better yellow than 'hampered' by that old-fashioned constitution thingie." We are reacting to the global war on terror as if we had a bomb a day in a pizza parlor somewhere in America, when this is far from the case. Ramping up the fear is part of the right wing agenda, but we don't have to capitulate to it.
It is time for new thinking. Obama needs to change the paradigm. To out-flank traditional ideas about fighting. To run an "end around".
Terrorism is based upon Hatred. What is the antidote for Hatred?
The answer to that question is Love, obviously.
We cannot "out hate" the terrorists. We cannot kill all of them. We cannot ignore them.
Therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to try to quell their hatred, or at least reach enough of them and their supporters, until they no longer see our destruction as their main objective.
Change their hearts, and you will change their minds and their actions.
Harden their hearts, and nothing will change.
Interesting idea. I only wish it would work so simply. The problem is that many of the terrorists are blinded by religion and the idea that we're infidels. Some of them are insane. Some of them hate us so much for everything we've done to them. And some of them think that the world would be a much nicer place without the US. So changing their hearts could take a really long time and is almost impossible.
You are right, however, that we can't just keep trying to kill them all. This will only strengthen their hate and make others who dislike the US become terrorists.
One key to Max Kennedy's piece is that the media is too often focussing on what titillates - to gain viewers and readers, rather than informing and educating by reporting the facts and helping educate by placing the news of the day in historical context. Our next President must have an appreciation for history combined with a open minded world view to deal with tragic events including the one described by Max. Unlike the current President, I have great confidence that Barack Obama understands and appreciates these issues.
Whenever the discussion of 'terrorism' digresses to a discussion of 'terrorists', the discussion is falling right into to the propaganda context that Governments (especially the Neocons) have painstakingly set up through their manipulation of media.
Even in Mr. Kennedy's article, by implication 'Terrorism' is 'de Facto' something that basically used exclusively by 'Moslem Extremists
And that's despite the fact that Right Wing 'terrorism' such as the assassination of Rabin, bombing Peace activists, attacks on abortion clinics is rampant.
The classification of 'terrorism' to be defined this way even in discussion, effectively precludes and subverts the real issues, political and ideological that should really be what's being discussed.
And this is exactly what the propagandists, have achieved.
War on terrorism was brought to the fore by the invaders and their media proxies as a cover for the invasion and to undermine the resistance. But it blew back to their faces. What worked in the past did not work this time because of the competition in the media. The irony is that USA has been the biggest player in the media revolution. Therefore your analysis is flawed (probably by design).
JUSTICE is the only thing that will allow us to wage a successful war against terror, lest we become terrorists ourselves.
As much as I emphathize with the Palestinian cause and others who suffer greatly, I abhor the violence perpetrated in the name of those worthy causes. Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda have hurt Palestinian and others more than advanced their causes because murdering innocent people overshadows any worthiness of a cause. But we must understand their right and need for respect, self-determination, and self-governance. We must recognize their desire to maintain their cultural identities in a modernized world.
If I could tell a terrorist one thing that would be: By polluting the Islamic religion of love, charity, and peace with vengeance, bloodshed, hate, and greed, you have become the Great Satan you rail against. The genius of Ghandi and MLK is that in the face of grave injustice they didn't allow their souls to be poisoned by fighting hate with hate. Their non-aggressive revolution held a mirror up to the conscious of their oppressors. That same method worked in driving the British, Belgiums, French, and Spaish from every corner of the globe, and it can work in Persia and Arabia.
I will never understand how we can be so hysterical about terrorism and so casual about other dangers, e.g. car crashes. Drunken drivers alone perpetrate the equivalent of five (5) 9/11's every year, and everyone except the victims' families shrugs it off.
Rationally, we should simply regard terrorism - and the "war on terror" - as the price of the American Empire. And then decide whether the empire is worth the price.
Drunken drivers don't intend to kill people....
The flaw in your logic is that you think terrorists are not reacting to our actions in their countries. By their own words, that is what they are fighting against, not because "they hate us for our freedoms". By their own words, they want us to stop our imperialistic actions in their countries.
Maybe it's time to take a closer look at those actions, and see if they are worth the price.
"Drunken drivers don't intend to kill people....
40,000+ deaths per year, year in, year out - and we look the other way, paralyzed by our fear of, and, dare I say it, fascination with, a small band of 'terrorists', imagined or real.
Can you imagine what a trillion dollars in fighting impaired drivers could accomplish in reducing misery? I can.
"Its the priorities, stupid"
The terrorists play the press to their advantage and in many instances the press is not even aware that they are being manipulated.
By design, the terrorists incorporate expected press coverage into their strategy. The Mumbai terrorists' intended multi-day siege was in part crafted for extended worldwide press coverage.
I have never thought to connect suicide missions (past era or present) with the noble phenomenon of physically covering a live grenade to protect your comrade brother in arms. There are obvious and clear distinctions between the two: forethought, intent and compassion. One kills himself to kill others. The other sacrifices himself to save others.
Perhaps the terrorist culture views their actions as noble also, and therein lies a problem.
Terrorist claims of religious impetus for their horror are disingenuous. No established religion requires or condones gruesome attacks on innocents. This concept is another clever cover, eagerly absorbed and then regurgitated by the press, that works to fundamentally embroil historic worlwide factions and to their mind (terrorist) somehow legitimize themselves.
"The Israelis have lived with suicide bombings now for a generation. They go about their lives without being consumed by fear or fascination. "
Same thing for the western European countries, since the 1970's when they had to deal with terrorists such as "Carlos", Baader-Meinhof, the provo-IRA, Red Brigades, etc. Europeans, by and large, regard acts of terrorism as CRIMES and not military acts; and, consequently, utilize law enforcement and INTERPOL instead of the military to combat it.
Methinks a similar approach is necessary here in the US. Treating an act of terrorism as an act of war only elevates the act and the perpetrator/s to an undeserved level. Treating it as a crime denigrates the act and isolates the perpetrator/s from the general public, with the latter more willing to help law enforcement without risk of losing civil liberties.
"The Israelis have lived with suicide bombings now for a generation. They go about their lives without being consumed by fear or fascination. "
That's patently false. I mean, /you're/ right about Europe taking the proper approach and eroding terrorism with a combination of law enforcement to corner the terrorists themselves, and diplomacy with the legitimate persons whose interests the terrorists claim to represent.
Israel? They've been taking the military approach for the entirety of its existence. To say nothing of the fact that they've also indulged in the terrorist approach since the early days of its formation (check up on Irgun, for starters). I would even argue they /still/ take the terrorist approach now and then -- firing a rocket from a helicopter at a crowd departing a mosque to kill a single politically significant figure (and anyone who happens to be standing nearby) for instance.
"Israel? They've been taking the military approach for the entirety of its existence. "
And why would that be?
Perhaps its because for Israel's entire existence its neighbors have been trying to destory it through war and terror?
The Three NO's from the 1967 Arab League meeting an Khartoum
1. NO peace with Israel
2. NO recognition of Israel
3. NO negotiations with Israel
Sadat changed thinsg when he went to Israel to make peace. And he was murdered for his trouble.
Just a few years ago, the majority of Palestinians voted into power the Islamist and genocidal Hamas who's political platform is based on not just the destruction of Israel but the killing of the Jews - a la Mumbai which shouldn't be a surprise since like Hamas, Lakshar e Tabai is also an Islamist terror group and as such singled out the Jews for murder.
The Israelis are guilty of defending their population from an endless war (Jihad) being waged against them since they were re established by an enemy that feels its their religious obligation to do so - much the same as the believe its their obligation to do in India, Thailand, Philippines, Kashmir, Chechnya and when they get around to it Grenada, Vienna and so on ... If Israel were gone tomorrow, nothing would change.
We are not waging a "war" on terror. All such emotions lie within us. As described above we can choose how we feel. Terrorism (waging war on civilians) is meant to provoke irrational, counter-productive responses. For a small investment huge rewards can accrue to the terrorists. The genius of Bin Ladin was his ability to provoke the worst possible response. He frightened us into acting wholly against our interests and trashing our good name abroad. His attack on 9/11 while tragic and horrific had no strategic impact until we over-reacted and chose to ignite the Middle East with our invasion of Iraq. We have now spent more time and money than we spent in WWII defeating the Axis powers (with the help of our friends). The blood and treasure we have squandered in Iraq has made us far more vulnerable to the current economic downturn. Our presence in the Mid East--and our ugly behavior--have been a powerful recruiting tool. The cost: 19 willing volunteers and $30 worth of box cutters.
I think that I disagree with your conclusion - that there's a military solution - I disagree with the Neocon's
whole 'war on terror'. Since it turned out to be a simple pig trough for the govs Cronie contractors and special interests.
However your main point, "that fear is the real enemy and someone needs to teach us to conquer fear" -
is spot on.
I certainly never became scared enough to agree to forfeit the freedoms, and ethics that were stripped
from us by the Neocons. But obviously, a lot of American did.
Fien, i agree with you. the neocon's took full advantage of us to take away Our Rights and Rob us blind and, they will not be charged as Traitors or Criminals.
Why don't apply the same tactics as the Roman empire? I believe they were quite effective.
This is not true.
We DID have a response to the suicide attacks off Okinawa and their implications for the pending invasion of Japan.
That response was the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the firebombings of Tokyo (which killed FAR more people than the atomic bombs combined.)
Truman hoped that these devastating attacks would shock the Japanese into surrender, and they had their desired effect. The invasion of Japan would have cost the U.S. over a million casualties, with the Japanese suffering over 20 million by most estimates.
Suicide attacks only occur when one combatant feels they no longer have anything to lose, Truman showed the Japanese they had a lot more to lose than they thought, but that was a war between two nations, not the clandestine struggle between stateless fanatics and the world that we now are caught in.
The Japanese surrender was due to the Soviet intervention as much as the A-Bombs, which were probably unnecessary.
This is a false analogy -- there's vanishingly little resemblance between Japanese kamikaze fighters (Japanese soldiers usually fought to the death also) and the global movement among Muslims triggered by our one-sided support of Israel and invasion of Iraq.
Looking for some way to stop "terrorism" without settling these kinds of fundamental issues is a fool's errand, endless war, endless death -- all of which only recruits new enemies for us. We can't invade, conquer and pacify the Muslim world the way we occupied and remade Japan.
I laugh at you analogy... HA!
Muslim's have been killing people in the name of Allah since the beginning of time. Don't flatter yourself into thinking that America caused them to all of a sudden start killing people.
So you had rather be on the side of Palestine. They have been trying to suppress the Jews since 132 A.D. So I say stay out of it and let them settle it, or try, on their own.
I think arvay's point was that unless the US alters it's foreign policy vis a vis the ME, it's pointless to talk about any other way to combat terrorism.
You could say similar things about Christians, you may have heard of the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Frankly, I am not interested in trying to stop all the killing in the world, but I would like to stop provoking Muslims to attack us, which is a direct outgrowth of our idiot mideast policy.
Your statement about "the Palestine" trying to suppress the Jews "since 132 a.d. is a bit nonsensical. The Romans flattened Jerusalem and scattered the Judean population in 70 a.d. and for some years thereafter. Anything "the Palestine" did after that was anticlimactic.
But nothing you wrote shows how "terrorism" fit the japanese example, it's an off-topic rant.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
