Terrorism Is Not Inevitable

By Ted Lewis and Jason Mark, AlterNet. Posted June 12, 2002.

Three weeks have passed since government officials unleashed dire warnings that the United States is destined to suffer future terrorist attacks and, incredibly, there has been little public outcry.

Perhaps the full meaning of the doomsday rhetoric emanating from Washington is not clear: Our national leaders have said we are bound to lose the struggle against terrorism. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt saying that there was no way of turning back the Japanese navy, or Winston Churchill proclaiming that the British would not be able to stop the Nazi onslaught.

Statements that future terrorist attacks are "not a matter of if, but when" represent an admission that White House's current strategy is doomed to failure. The Bush Administration does not believe we can win this conflict -- but that is because they are fighting the wrong war. The warnings from Washington reveal an important truth: There is no way to defeat terrorism with warfare alone. As long as our counter-terrorism strategy relies on force, terror attacks will remain a threat. Yes, it's true -- sending US troops to the Philippine jungles, Georgia, or the troubled lands of Central Asia won't make us safe.

But that does not mean that terrorism is inevitable. A strategy that focuses on addressing the sources of resentment and uprooting the causes of terrorism in cooperation with other nations offers a way to ensure American security.

Government officials don't believe they can find a solution to terrorism because they misunderstand the problem. The threats toward the U.S. are not based on hostility to our values -- as some of our leaders have claimed -- but because we have abandoned so many of our values when it comes to our foreign policy.

We say we are committed to freedom, and yet for decades we have supported dictators just because they are willing to send us their oil or harbor our military bases. We pledge ourselves to justice, and yet our policymakers actively opposee the creation of the International Criminal Court. We say we want peace, and yet the U.S. is the largest weapons dealer in the world.

The disconnect between rhetoric and reality helps explain why we are threatened. Propping up dictatorships and monarchies just to keep the oil flowing makes enemies easily. If, on the other hand,  we put human rights, democracy, and justice at the center of our policymaking, we are less likely to attract such hatred. The U.S. should also re-orient its policies to tackle social ills like injustice and poverty -- which provide fertile territory for terrorist recruiters. We need a new foreign policy that genuinely puts these principles at the heart of our decision-making.

At the same time, we need to rethink the criteria for choosing friends and allies. Saudi Arabia is described as a "moderate" state while Iran is lumped in with the "axis of evil." Yet Iran boasts a more energetic democracy, a more lively press, and a more active role for women in society than what the house of Saud will permit under its reign. And did our relationship with their corrupt government help enrage the 15 Saudis who attacked on Sept. 11? So which country is more of a "valued ally" -- Iran or Saudi Arabia?

But it's possible that even in a world of perfect freedom and universal affluence, terrorism would persist. Religious fanaticism can be far more unyielding than despotism or inequality. But if religious fanatics can't be eliminated, at least they can be isolated. Unfortunately, Washington's unilateralism is an obstacle to the sort of cooperation needed to isolate people determined to do harm.

The United States' military and economic strength has led us to believe that we can act alone and without regard for the opinions of other nations. Our resistance to cooperative action is short-sighted, one example being Washington's opposition to ratifying the UN Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. At other times disregard for the opinions of others has been self-defeating -- for instance, our refusal to acknowledge Afghan captives at Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war, which has led some European countries to refuse to turn terrorist suspects over to us.

This kind of behavior has left us in a position with few genuine friends and only reluctant allies. With the security of Americans at stake, we can no longer afford a unilateralist approach that annoys our partners and needlessly enrages our adversaries.

Our current leaders say they cannot protect us. To scare peace-loving people with visions of slaughter only aids terrorists, for it sows the kinds of fears terrorism depends on. That fatalism is wholly unacceptable in individuals entrusted with protecting the public.

An outcry against this fatalism is overdue. If our officials really believe they cannot stop terrorism, then it is up to the citizens to start looking for leaders who will.

Jason Mark and Ted Lewis work for the international human rights organization Global Exchange.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »