- Over the past several weeks the Washington debate on
terrorism has descended to a self-centered level that is probably without
precedent, granted that city is unlikely to have pursued any other national
issue in an information environment that offers such belly button clarity.
The debate about who knew or did not know the threats and who did or did
not do what might have been done about them is surely as sterile as it
can get. This debate has spawned reams of print and rolls of electronic
coverage without doing anything but pass the time. The fact is they still
do not get it.
-
- Richard Clarke, who has been one of the most coherent
players in the debate, almost turned to the right page of this problem
in an editorial called " The Wrong Debate on Terrorism published this
week in the New York Times. He rightly identifies the struggle within
Islam as a challenge for the world community, but he says that struggle
is both ideological and directed against the west, neither of which is
accurate. As serious Muslim scholars in Cairo, Rabat, Beirut, Karachi,
and elsewhere will explain, this struggle is not about the west it is about
how Islamic societies manage, read cope with change, modernization, and
the stresses this puts on Islamic beliefs. It is less about ideology than
it is about how religious values fit in modern patterns of life and behavior.
This struggle is not without counterparts in Christendom, and it is hardly
finished in the United States. Our fundamentalists are probably as dangerous
to the Muslims as theirs are to us. Certainly Bush and his neo-conservative
advisers have done a convincing job of making that point.
-
- Clarke then goes on to indicate that the so-called anti-American
jihad is in great measure a product of American policies and programs pursued
through several US administrations. He says it is a good idea to advocate
democracy in Middle East countries, but not at the point of a gun and not
without plans to follow on effectively from regime change. However, he
then suggests that the struggle against terrorism is a war of ideas in
which "ideological and religious " counters to al Qaida and the
fundamentalist Muslim clerics must be found. He suggests, however, that
this is our assignment, when in reality it is not. As outsiders we cannot
provide the new truths that will guide Islam successfully through this
and succeeding centuries. They must come from within. He also suggests
the ideas are bin Laden's when in fact the problems now plaguing Islam
have been accumulating for well over a century. The newest element is an
aggressive, self-interested, and hardly skillful outsider trying to impose
a fix.
-
- A high priority in Clarke's war of ideas is progress
on the Israeli and Palestinian issues, but, he affirms, "safe-guarding
Israeli security. In that statement, however, he exposes the single most
damning element in the US position: He gives not even a nod toward the
security of the Palestinian people who are daily attacked, walled in, hassled
and targeted for assassination by current Israeli leadership, using modern,
expensive weapons largely provided and paid for by the United States.
If we are indeed engaged on a war of ideas, the omission of any concern
for the rights and interests of the Palestinians is a virtual guided missile
targeting the Islamic world. The Arabs will believe we are serious about
peace in the region when we actively pursue a truly balanced policy toward
Palestinian and Israeli interests. We can make matters worse in various
ways, but we cannot make them much better without fixing this enduring
flaw in US behavior.
-
- Clarke then turns to the Washington debate about how
to organize to fight the war on terrorism. He concludes that some structural
changes might help, but says they are not the answer. There probably are
a few aspects of the US defense against terrorism that can be improved
with different organization and staffing. However, the number, skills,
training, dedication, and distribution of qualified people are far more
critical issues than how they are organized. With cuts and budget constraints
in all the critical agencies for several years, the United States simply
does not have enough people in enough places to acquire the information
and analysis we need to be effective. Penetrating the intentions or planned
actions in another society is not possible without sustained and concentrated
observation and interaction with key players in that society. With all
the benefits of electronic media, these are merely tools and they do not
substitute for human eyes, ears, understanding and judgment. When most
of the knowledge or intelligence problems are abroad, beefing up organizations
at home is likely to run up the bill while not providing any added protection.
-
- The most disturbing aspect of the Washington debate,
even as reformulated by Clarke, is that it treats the human conditions
that spawn terrorism as givens. Most of the developing world has problems
of governance and pervasive scarcity of resources. The inequalities that
go with mal-distribution of scarce goods and services define the human
condition in too many places. Inequalities of political participation
and access to opportunity are features of this situation in many countries,
even some advanced ones. Problems with fundamentalism appear most pronounced
in those Muslim countries where such economic, political and social conditions
are most severe. Normally the people who are left out or are unable to
share effectively take out their discontent on their own governments and
elites. However, the aggressive approaches of the United States, as demonstrated
in Iraq, and a persistent lack of US sensitivity to the needs of the Palestinian
people, as well as US alliances with governments that are insensitive to
their out groups, provide fuel for turning jihadist energies against the
United States.
-
- A war on terrorism that does not recognize these facts
is unlikely to succeed and, if anything, is likely to make matters worse.
The Washington debate will begin to make some sense when the human factors
that spawn terrorism are taken into account and actions are taken to correct
them. We might even win this war in our lifetimes, if Washington leadership
were to turn it around and do battle against the inequities of the human
condition, but as of now the focus of the debate shows that they still
do not get it.
-
- The writer is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer
of the US Department of State. He welcomes comments at wecanstopit@charter.net
|
