19 March 2008
Obama’s Naïveté
Recent Letters to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal (from Denis Ables and Howard F. Jaeckel, March 18, 2008) charged Senator Barack Obama with naïveté in advocating withdrawal from Iraq before defeating Al Qaeda’s adherents there. What they miss is the fact that the Bush Administration could have picked a fight with radical Islamic terrorists anywhere in the Muslim world. By that action, the selected country would have become the central front in this war.
Al Qaeda is only one organization that adopts terrorism to achieve its goals. The Algerians used it to force out the French; the Palestinians use it to combat Israel; the Chechens use terrorism against Russia; the Taliban terrorize Afghan farmers; disaffected Indonesians take violent measures against their corrupt government. This tactic is not only common to Islamic radicals--what about Northern Ireland, Colombia, Sri Lanka, etc.? It is a mistake to identify terrorism with Al Qaeda; the real enemy of civil order in the world is nihilism practiced by those who reject the peaceful resolution of perceived injustice.
A successful response to terrorism must find a way to co-opt its practitioners by offering them benefits from collaboration. But this can be costly to the imperium that seeks to impose the order in the world that favors its own values, life style, and commercial interests. Calling all enemies of that imperium radical Islamic terrorists or Al Qaeda is merely a convenience for justifying self-perpetuating warfare. Opposing that strategy is not naïve—it’s calling a spade a spade.
Recent Letters to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal (from Denis Ables and Howard F. Jaeckel, March 18, 2008) charged Senator Barack Obama with naïveté in advocating withdrawal from Iraq before defeating Al Qaeda’s adherents there. What they miss is the fact that the Bush Administration could have picked a fight with radical Islamic terrorists anywhere in the Muslim world. By that action, the selected country would have become the central front in this war.
Al Qaeda is only one organization that adopts terrorism to achieve its goals. The Algerians used it to force out the French; the Palestinians use it to combat Israel; the Chechens use terrorism against Russia; the Taliban terrorize Afghan farmers; disaffected Indonesians take violent measures against their corrupt government. This tactic is not only common to Islamic radicals--what about Northern Ireland, Colombia, Sri Lanka, etc.? It is a mistake to identify terrorism with Al Qaeda; the real enemy of civil order in the world is nihilism practiced by those who reject the peaceful resolution of perceived injustice.
A successful response to terrorism must find a way to co-opt its practitioners by offering them benefits from collaboration. But this can be costly to the imperium that seeks to impose the order in the world that favors its own values, life style, and commercial interests. Calling all enemies of that imperium radical Islamic terrorists or Al Qaeda is merely a convenience for justifying self-perpetuating warfare. Opposing that strategy is not naïve—it’s calling a spade a spade.
Comments:
Post a Comment
