Yeah, that's the really tough one
My thoughts are mixed, but I feel that need for retribution.
Indeed; as an
American, it would distress me to let this deed go unpunished. But as a
member of human society, I know that warfare solves nothing. On a surface level, it's a matter of degrees, much as I assert that human and Universal differentiation is a matter of ratios. But even when I look at "proper" wars (Neil Simon, in one play or another, writes something along the lines of WWII being the last "good" war in the sense of clear objectives and notions of right and wrong), I see much that could have been done to alleviate the situation before it got that far. (We might pause at some point, in relation to WWII, and wonder about Britain and the German navy, Franco, &c. ...)
I think about our anticommunist work in Korea and Vietnam, and wonder how we got to a Cold War: the United States government cannot deny its efforts to unseat the Bolsheviks, and cannot demonstrate a philosophical understanding of Bolshevik Communism. The point here is that Americans helped provoke that whole mess, and ended up getting involved at one point in a French colonial issue that became the most controversial non-war in American history.
On the one hand, it's not quite proper to say that Bush's use of the word
crusade indicates his utter lack of understanding regarding our declared foe. To the other, nobody ever claimed that Dubya understands fundamentalist revolutionary Islam. In fairness to both the president and the situation, though, I would suggest that our Executive take a long, hard look at America's recent involvement with terrorists (Reagan years is a good start for that chapter) and the growing international voice of complaint regarding US poicy. It isn't that we owe bin Laden
anything, much less concessions. But as long as we continue the "No negotiation with terrorists" bent, we'll sound like the post-Littleton crowd saying, "Why, why?" when the villains are telling us their reasons.
To this notion, I do not mean to imply that the villains are telling us their reasons
coherently ... reminding Americans that we're the Great Satan is like telling a supermodel you think she's pretty. (
Hear it all the time ... who the hell are you to be talking to me?)
The actual problem with "no negotiation with terrorists" is not that we should negotiate. No quid-pro-quo will help solve the larger problem. But even among Americans, when a manifesto or other declaration of purpose is put before the public and its institutions, such ideas are met with derision. Yes, we know the Unabomber's manifesto was nutty, but inside it is his justification for murder--is there not some value to be had in its contribution to understanding the motives of lethal human division? After Littleton, I heard many psychs and pundits commenting on the reasons why, and the few occasions the gunners' own declarations came up, those declarations were dismissed as secondary, as "excuses", or otherwise useless. Whether or not we accept the reasons given, however, reasons were given. In other words, the idea of not negotiating with terrorists has created a climate in which we do not pay attention to anything other than the label "terrorist", and thus fail to understand that there exists a perception of imbalance that has become so extreme that someone is willing to kill and die for it. That imbalance is critical.
One of the brightest people I know is frothing at the mouth for blood; as much as he sympathizes with my sentiments against war, he justifies the current call to arms with, "We're good, they're evil." So ...
Based on what?
Freedom, equality ... &c.
So based on our own perception of right and wrong?
Yes.
But that's what they think about us. Exactly.
But they're wrong. We're good, they're evil.
But based solely on our own standards that we prefer to keep as ideals, and not practices.
You're either with us, or against us ....
The most frightening dimension of the warfare response is that one cannot, apparently, wish for a better solution without being perceived as betraying America. I hereby refer, once again, to Emma Goldman's writings on Patriotism:
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Anarchism/patriotism.html
Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.
The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner . . . .
This is a Western, post-Judaic, Anarchist assertion circa 1918 ... I can also stop and consider a recent essay I read by Emir Ali Khan, included in the anthology
Sufi Thought and Action:
The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilizations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities. These, in turn, create attitudes of mind which include certain capacities and equally positively exclude others.
The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities.
Such challenge, description or questioning, often the questioning of assumptions, is what frequently enables a culture or a number of people from that culture to think in ways that have been closed to most of their followers.
It seems to me that we have here two similar assertions built in different contexts, but the key is their common perspective as relates to the current situation: We must transcend our traditional ideas in order to see the solution. This means everybody involved, whether participating, watching, or sleeping through it.
Because in the end, certain political solutions will, in fact, reduce the violence (there is, of course, bin Laden's comments regarding the destruction of all Americans, but I'm trying to maintain the broader perspective here ....). Unfortunately, those solutions are ones we find unacceptable for certain reasons, many of which are, at their root, mere cultural prejudices so inherent that we do not readily see them as such: hence, good and evil, instead of a poor meeting of ideas.
In the relative moral scheme I advocate, yes, we are the good guys; but one must always be prepared to be wrong about such broad points from time to time, especially with such legitimate complaints about US foreign policy as we see around the world. For those who say such terrorism was inevitable (and I am among that flock), this is largely the reason: we assume ourselves to be superior to our declared foes, and forfeit our capacity to comprehend what they're saying. Without comprehension, it is unwise and perhaps even immoral to dismiss someone's claims out of hand merely because they are terrorists. Certes, there is a difference 'twixt bin Laden and, say, the IRA's "revolution", but I seem to recall that the powers that be generally ignored Irish Republican complaints--because they were "terrorists"--until nobody could ignore it any longer. We must deal with the current threat to our country, but we have a moral obligation to ourselves as Americans and to our international neighbors to
not ignore the complaining voices "over there", nor dismiss them because they perceive mortal necessity before we do.
I'll stop now because I could literally filibuster the war like this if such were possible. I also feel the need to advise,
Bowser, that this rambling post is more brought about by your considerations than presented in opposition or direct response to.
Anyway, thanx for the minutes ....
--Tiassa
