Where is the War on Terror leading us?
| | Opinions | 17 November 2004 |
|
|
|
Author: Bas Boorsma
I took my country to war has never been a line based on which an American President got a second term - until the re-election of George W. Bush.
 The majority of the electorate seems to have voted for Bush for reasons that appear to have remarkably little to do with economics or rational politics. Among the key ingredients are fear and religion. Where is the war on terror taking us?
A central key to maintaining absolute power, it is stated in George Orwells 1984, is to wage a continuous war. As they wage their War on Terror, the neo-conservative ideologues of the Bush administration seem to have understood this all too well. At home, their war amounts to a permanent, low intensity conflict. Low enough to ensure people wont hit the streets in order to protest against too many body bags coming back, but enough conflict to ensure people are sufficiently afraid. As long as they are, they remain united behind their leader who is their protector. Though real enough and intense abroad, from the standpoint of home security, the war on terror provides exactly the kind of the low intensity, continuous conflict that, according to Orwells formula War = Peace, keeps peoples fears alive.
Hence, a leader has been re-elected who ensures the battle for peace will be waged on, further antagonizing a wider world, enhancing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks and little international dialogue, strengthening fears, in turn further underscoring the need for a war on terror.
A second element that has apparently helped the case of the present administration is religion. George W. Bush got partially elected over issues such as gay marriage and abortion, which are essentially treated as religious issues. Never in the post second world war era have religious undercurrents dominated an American election as much as this time around - in a country that was rather religious in its outlook and in its political expressions with it anyhow.
Meanwhile, in the Islamic world there is now a growing movement of fundamentalists who seem to cultivate a culture of death. They cannot be reasoned with. They believe they are morally, politically utterly right in all they do. Any dialogue or compromise with the satanic West and their puppets is an insult to God, or so they seem to reason. No peace can or will be bargained with these Fundamentalist Islamists. Although the vast majority of Muslims in the world do not favor this line of religious adherence, the Islamists are gaining ground. Every newspaper-reading world citizen is only too aware of all this. Yet, it is important is to realize that much of what is going wrong in the Islamic world is essentially a reaction, a response. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the American presence in Iraq, American foreign policies in general and failing economic and social policies in many middle eastern states have helped to empower these fundamentalist groupings, which were initially just sectarian splinter groups.
The US could possibly have ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at many instances in the past. For one thing, the US could have threatened to discontinue trade and aid to Israel. Needless to say, no administration will ever dare to even propose such line of action. There are just too many pro-Israel lobby groups in Washington. More importantly, many people - if not most - in the conservative electorate tend to believe Israel is the Biblical promised land, with the Palestinians being the mythical adversaries of the Old testaments prophets. To allow them a state, to stop the alliance with Israel as it exists, would probably be considered a sin- if not outright an insult to God - by many who have essentially reveled in a fundamentalist religious attitude, fueling American policies, not just since September 11, but for decades. Perspectives have been dangerously one-sided for many years already, right down to the semantics. A Mossad assassination of a Pakistani in Amman will be called a successful covert operation. A Palestinian taking out an Israeli operative (if they can at all) will be called a terrorist attack. It has been like that for many years preceding September 11.
The American response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the growing religious undercurrent in US politics, and the dynamics of the now by and large institutionalized politics of fear, have greatly enhanced this one-sidedness. It has reached to point where the concept of America, the country blessed by God is no longer a popular sentiment but a political conviction. Indeed, key to the political thinking now dominant in Washingtons corridors of power, is the conviction that Americas actions are, by definition, morally just and for the benefit of all mankind, as they are on the side of peace, freedom and justice.
Adherers of this line of thinking cannot be bargained with. They will carry any burden to pursue what they believe is morally, and therefore politically right. In all these dynamics, the fundamentalist Christians and Islamists resemble each other all too well.
Todays international problems may not all be Americas fault. However, it is imperative to underscore the political dynamics that have led up to the situation we find ourselves in today. Historians would say these processes have not yet played out fully. This chapter of modern history is not yet finished. Possibly it has only just started.
If there is one thing one can learn from history, it is that so very little can actually be learned from it. Major historical developments and events all have a unique myriad of ingredients and a preceding tapestry of actors, conditions, facts, and figures. In the end, no historic event equals another - so much is true. The Iraq war cannot be compared with the conflict in Vietnam just as Saddam was no Hitler. The precedent the International Court is trying create by means of the Milosevic Trial may lead to some important jurisprudence. But the case itself is proving such a long and unique affair, that a similar case may never see the light of day. And one cannot even begin to compare George W. Bush with anybody else. At the very moment that W. may remind you of his father, you are immediately confronted by the fact that so little of his policies actually resemble his fathers and how much the world has changed since George Senior held the reigns of power.
Yet, previous eras increasingly seem to shed their light, scent and sound on ours. Dynamics, lessons and events, small or large, from the past haunt us in the present. One such period, which comes to mind when studying todays international problems are the years on the eve of the First World War. Entire civilizations clashed in a colossal war. So over-confident were the adversaries of their chances of victory as well as their moral and political correctness of their premises and ideologies, that nobody seemed to be able to stop the break out of war any longer. Worse, many seemed no longer be willing to stop it.
Today, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists dominate world news headlines, and set the international political agenda. Both believe they are essentially right. Both believe there is no other choice than to fight it out. Those who think differently may prove insufficiently capacitated to stop the adversaries from invoking the dogs of war.
Another era that comes to mind is the 1930s. The comparison is easy though over-simplistic. Just as in the 1920s, it was all thumbs up during the 1990ss -- until the crisis came. And when it came, old problems became more apparent than ever. In the 1920s, Japan allowed its soldiers to march. Germans enthusiastically endorsed Hitler. Many elements contributed to his rise. By the time he had risen, war was impossible to avoid. Today, too, we increasingly seem to find ourselves in a situation in which antagonists are neither able, nor willing to take a step back from ultimate confrontation.
More subtle elements reminding us of previous dark eras are abound as well. It was George Orwell who remarked that in such times (as in the 1930s) of polarization, every action or utterance -- in fact every human social expression - is being politicized. Artists could no longer claim to be a-political or neutral in Orwells view, with such neutrality being dangerously nave. Though this may also hold true for our world today, our current predicament can also be seen in reverse order as well: If art, music and literature becomes overly political in any given period, it may be a sign that humanity is in for another dark bout of its history. From Madonna to the trailer of the latest Star Wars movie due out in 2005, they hint at darker times coming, with a once peaceful Republic now failing -- or so Sir Alec Guinness tells us in his role of Jedi Knight.
As stated, no two historic eras can ever be compared. There are differences, with several elements today allowing for hope. Through mass media people are better informed than ever. It is not as easy to commence a war of the dimensions of the World Wars, with so many people prepared to follow their leaders whatever it takes. Furthermore, the antagonists simply do not have the military capabilities to fully destroy each other - only one side does. Though dirty bombs and suicide terrorism are apt instruments for those without an army, we are unlikely to blast each other into nuclear oblivion such as could have been the case in a Global Nuclear War, as envisaged during the Cold War. Yet the world seems to be heading for darker days, for permanent warfare. Are there people willing and able enough to stop that from happening? Whether there are, may prove to be the crucial difference to set us apart form humanitys darkest hours.
Published on 17 November 2004 by RISQ
Bas Boorsma | www.risq.org
5794 reads |
|
