Western Civilization takes pride in accepting the principle that the end does not justify the means in terms of violence unless opponents break the principle, or even worse when the ends in themselves are as bad as the means. In the case of Osama bin Laden, the self-appointed caliphal of a twisted interpretation of Islam, together with Zarqwai, the ends are to terminate forever the incursion of modernity that threatens the brutal reign of Islamic values of forgoing common rights and comforts of followers, as was exhibited by the Taliban and currently in effect by the ayatollahs of Iran. The pretense that the current chaos is owing to religious fanatics is nonsense. The truth is thugs will don any garment to cover their intent to bully the world and replace civilizations struggling to be governed by constitutional law with ungodly actions under the guise of spiritual or vague idealistic law when in truth it is all too temporal totalitarianism.

Throughout the twentieth century wars, hot and cold, have been waged against material totalitarianism. Imperial ambitions of Germany and Japan were put to rest by the Allies’ coalescing violent power greater than their own. After some seventy years the Soviet Union finally stripped itself, thanks to the convenient demise of hardliners, of the illusion that it was equal to the West’s economic and military prowess. These victories were possible because the West could target clear-cut enemies. However, where there is the vagary of intentions as in the Korean and Vietnam wars waged by the US, which prides itself in just wars, victory is elusive without a clear demarcation of who the enemy really is.

The twenty-first century scenario is that though the enemy clearly demonstrates intent and tactic, there is no defined capital or headquarters upon which to retaliate. Iraq, out of US frustration and trumped up paranoia, was a throwback to the last century whereupon an enemy could be clearly defined, even though it had no relevance to the crises at hand. Had the US resorted to the same tactic in response to September 11, war would have been declared on the entire Middle East, Pakistan, Iran, as well as Afghanistan for harboring Islamic terrorists intent on parallel aims with al Qaeda. Instead it chose a very limited war on the Taliban with the hope that it would serve as deterrent for the rest of the terrorist world. Obviously it did not work, not even in Afghanistan itself. That the US itself has had no further cataclysm is no reason to think that the strategy is working what with the free trade of dirty bombs circulating the world. Nor will the so-called democratization of Iraq work as an exemplar for the Islamic world, if anything, it will strengthen Islam with the enhanced influence of the Shia.

This leads to Sherye Hanson’s attempt to offer alternatives to the existing strategy against terrorism. As all peace-makers who enter the fray, she got her ears boxed by those espousing the country right or wrong, but always just. As in poetry one must consider the “voice” to fully comprehend the verse, so with Sherye, a caring, loving and devout woman, who expresses true Christian justice through peaceful means coupled with inevitably an echo of naiveté — but surely not one ignorant of the issue. It is difficult to argue with her premise that violence begets violence, a horrible loop in which there is no escaping. She insightfully invokes the corollary of Vietnam — search and destroy with no end in sight because the enemy felt their nation was invaded by the same old imperialists. France warned Eisenhower to no avail and subsequently ignored by Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.

Granted, Sherye is no strategist, but she does suggest that as much effort should be expended as the current alternative. As an ex-marine, I am tempted to cry out Gung Ho and decimate the Islamic culture — anything short of all-out war is not working — if for no other reason than for the chivalric throwback in championing millions of women the right to personhood. My saner temperament aligns with Sherye: why not concessions from benevolent strength? Thugs do listen to bigger bullies, you know. We should sit them down at the table and expose them to the world. Let them air their grievances against the West which dares to free women and children through education, to tolerate religious freedoms that do not put fear into the spirit of humankind, to expect governance to be in the name of free individuals to pursue enlightenment through more than one book, to wish religion to be of introspective prayer rather than flagellation.

What, then, is the cause but butchery and the denial of modern comforts for those they profess to champion? How far will that go with the world including Islam? And if they rip off their sandals to pound the table in protest, they will be reminded in no uncertain terms that the virgins awaiting them in Allah’s paradise will be kidnaped by special forces and their suicidal bent will end in no spiritual rewards. In return, the West will declare a truce for one year, turn back the clock on Israel’s expansionism and tear down its wall, assist in removing all land mines and dirty bombs from Islamic soil, moderate the influx of Western culture, support the UN in moderating tribal conflicts, introduce a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, restore the ancient libraries of Islam’s age of medieval enlightenment, manage a fair distribution of staples and clothing, firm up the Peace Corps for reconstruction and education, and withdraw occupation troops from Iraq and replace with a UN coalition of Muslim nations.

If the truce is broken savagely and the offenders crouch in secrecy, the Marine blood still within me will bubble up and declare WW III.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: March 17, 2004.