Constructive gadfly
Published on August 8, 2004 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

Once Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer headlines — wishful thinking perhaps — the US should end the state of “war” on terrorism so that it is not relegated to the meaningless equation of wars on drugs, poverty, and AIDS. The undeniable fact is that terrorism is an unspeakable crime against humanity by unscrupulous ideologists and murderous followers who operate under the pretense of cause célèbre even though it has nothing whatever to do with the subversion of a government. For instance, if it should turn out that elections in Afghanistan resulted in a strong return of the Taliban, which does not renounce its terrorist methods, then it is subversive and the Afghanistan “republic” — with the help of the international community — should jail those who advocate violent overthrow of the new government or investigate suspects of terrorist acts. So, too, with Iraq in the event that the people choose a Shiite theocracy, it is an internal problem, provided it does not form an alliance with Iran for the purpose of exporting terrorism.

Exporting terrorism is not tantamount to exporting capitalism or democratic ideology, which by contrast to their nature do not advocate violence in order to achieve their aims. However, arrogant multinational corporations and governments that thrust their goals onto an unwilling populace of foreign soil because a conceivably corrupt government permits inroads for its own gain, then overthrow of said government should be acceptable — even with the assistance of the international community. As an illustration, had bin Laden been a true patriot, remaining in Saudi, to do battle with his government tied to American interests, then his tactics, however horrendous, directed at the state structure and not international embassies, would seem plausive to those oppressed. Had he been successful in supplanting a government as autocratic as he, yet given multinationals elbow room, unlike Castro, either to renegotiate new contracts or to leave the country with fair reparation, the loud protest of interfering with the global oil supply would carry no weight unless bin Laden followed through with unilateral fundamentalism and plugged forever the oil resources to maintain absolute anti-modernity at the expense of his own people and the world’s. With a semblance of realism, bin Laden would relieve to an extent a self-destructive hardline as his supposed thrust was American troops in sacred soil.

Of course, in this scenario, chances are high that bin Laden would have been a merciless dictator for totalitarian theocratic objectives as Saddam was for Stalinist secular heresy, which, however, forced a realism in the latter to cooperate with multinationals with respect to oil; whereas bin Laden conceivably would view oil as the enemy of Islam, but in the last analysis the enemy of Saudi’s economy and thus the commonwealth of his people. In such a case, would the global community justifiably invoke sanctions against Saudi Arabia on the grounds that an internally disruptive revolution — equivalent to WMD — has clearly affected the commonwealth of the world? Of course. Gone is the era of ignoring internal politics that have international implications — Germany in the 30s for one or Japan’s disruption of Asia. In the event a strong UN resolution does not result in restoring civility and legality of international contractual obligations, then a utilitarian invasion consisting of Muslim nations as well as western must be carried out for the global benefit of the greatest good. If, however, the Muslim nations vehemently protest, then the only alternative is a global embargo and a massive initiation of alternative fuels.

Is this justification the same as Bush’s war? No. There was no threat to the global commonwealth. Sanctions were working and crimes against humanity had been stifled. Reconnaissance of the no-fly zones did the job in relation to destructive weapons, vehicles and installations. The anti-aircraft installations were pathetically futile. And no small matter: the oil was flowing. In addition there was no clear signs of harboring terrorists — until the aftermath of the invasion. Ironically the only reason we invaded was that of certainty Iraq had no nuclear weapons to set off. In the illustrated case, out right invasion of Saudi Arabia without a “permission slip” from OPEC and Muslim nations could conceivably initiate a nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran, along with the unpredictable North Korea — let alone, chaos in the Middle East. Thus, tightening the belt and regrouping of OPEC and other global oil resources would be sufficient counteraction.

To return to diminishing the effect of international terrorism, the only approach is to cooperate with nations who are beset with pockets of cells that they do not themselves willingly harbor and assist them in routing them. For those nations that with deliberation do harbor cells is sufficient reason to invoke extremely harsh sanctions against them — even if it entails blockading oil producing nations.

     Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: August 8, 2004.


Comments
on Aug 08, 2004
For instance, if it should turn out that elections in Afghanistan resulted in a strong return of the Taliban, which does not renounce its terrorist methods, then it is subversive and the Afghanistan “republic” — with the help of the international community — should jail those who advocate violent overthrow of the new government or investigate suspects of terrorist acts.


Are you sure you mean this? Just because the Taliban uses "weapons of the weak" eg terrorism (a statement you've provided no evidence for by the way) should not in and of itself mean that they must tolerate terrorism in their state once they regain control. Jailing the investigators as well as those who plot rebellion might make police work extremely difficult, even if it would lead to consistency in internal policy.
on Aug 09, 2004
Jailing the investigators
???? Also you missed the qualification in the event the Taliban does not give up terrorist tactics.