22 November 2009
Rationalizing the War on Terrorism
Don’t hand KSM and Bin Laden an excuse for using terrorism to dispute U.S. policy
Don’t excuse the Bush administration (or, for that matter, the Obama administration) for adopting war to combat terrorism.
Writers like Ray McGovern of Consortium News could be suspected of doing the bidding of autocratic Middle Eastern regimes, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. They divert attention from the complicity of those regimes in the preservation of the Israeli power structure at the expense of Palestinian autonomy. The more farsighted policy for oil-rich Arab nations to pursue (and this is not a religious conflict) would be to invest in making Palestine a depot for their energy projects and a spring of the intellectual resources needed for their own economic development.
There is nothing acceptable in wielding terrorism (again, calling it Islamic is a red herring) to effect change in U.S. or NATO policy vis-à-vis Israel. Not only is terrorism an outrageous violation of the standards of civil behavior, it is being directed at the wrong target. Energy (and particularly oil and gas) is certainly at the center of the unrest in the Middle East; but the real culprits are not the users of energy—the energy suppliers are at fault. They have been unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve their professed pan-Arab goals and instead have been seduced by a sense of entitlement. Because fate gave them natural wealth under their lands and waters, they believe they can demand compliance with those goals from less well-endowed countries without diminishing their immediate returns.
Remember Robert Heinlein’s immortal acronym, TANSTAAFL (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). The Arabs who used terrorism to achieve their political goals on 9/11 neglected this truth—if you want something badly enough, you’re going to have to pay for it. Moreover, they have been giving their oppressive governments a free ride by not demanding greater accountability in the use of the wealth generated by their energy resources. Here is the anomaly of the religious issue: Terrorism is Islamic because it is being used in defense of the shortsighted policies of autocratic regimes (particularly Saudi Arabia) that have wrapped their authority in the legitimacy bestowed by religious dogma.
Don’t hand KSM and Bin Laden an excuse for using terrorism to dispute U.S. policy
Don’t excuse the Bush administration (or, for that matter, the Obama administration) for adopting war to combat terrorism.
Writers like Ray McGovern of Consortium News could be suspected of doing the bidding of autocratic Middle Eastern regimes, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. They divert attention from the complicity of those regimes in the preservation of the Israeli power structure at the expense of Palestinian autonomy. The more farsighted policy for oil-rich Arab nations to pursue (and this is not a religious conflict) would be to invest in making Palestine a depot for their energy projects and a spring of the intellectual resources needed for their own economic development.
There is nothing acceptable in wielding terrorism (again, calling it Islamic is a red herring) to effect change in U.S. or NATO policy vis-à-vis Israel. Not only is terrorism an outrageous violation of the standards of civil behavior, it is being directed at the wrong target. Energy (and particularly oil and gas) is certainly at the center of the unrest in the Middle East; but the real culprits are not the users of energy—the energy suppliers are at fault. They have been unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve their professed pan-Arab goals and instead have been seduced by a sense of entitlement. Because fate gave them natural wealth under their lands and waters, they believe they can demand compliance with those goals from less well-endowed countries without diminishing their immediate returns.
Remember Robert Heinlein’s immortal acronym, TANSTAAFL (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). The Arabs who used terrorism to achieve their political goals on 9/11 neglected this truth—if you want something badly enough, you’re going to have to pay for it. Moreover, they have been giving their oppressive governments a free ride by not demanding greater accountability in the use of the wealth generated by their energy resources. Here is the anomaly of the religious issue: Terrorism is Islamic because it is being used in defense of the shortsighted policies of autocratic regimes (particularly Saudi Arabia) that have wrapped their authority in the legitimacy bestowed by religious dogma.
Comments:
Post a Comment
