Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A Better Way to Tackle Terror

By Scilla Elworthy, openDemocracy.net. Posted July 28, 2005.


The long, bloody conflicts in Northern Ireland and Palestine show that if terrorism is approached as war, it cannot be defeated.
Advertisement

The five days between July 6 and July 10 were for Londoners a mini-epic of emotional intensity. Between exultant celebrations of the successful 2012 Olympic Games bid and proud commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the second world war, the city's transport networks suffered a coordinated assault of four bombings that killed 56 people and injured 700.

The pattern of events produced a familiar narrative in response: that Londoners -- and British people generally -- are good at pulling together in a crisis. This narrative, drawing on a broader sense of historical continuity and solidarity, encourages the British to feel that they can find themselves not merely in standing together, but in being prepared to fight together.

But 2005 is not 1945, and the bombings of "7/7" present a different kind of threat. The long, bloody conflict in Northern Ireland shows that if terrorism is approached as war, it cannot be defeated. If superior force could subdue terror, the mightiest military machine in history would by now surely have prevailed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What is needed instead is intelligence: intelligence of the obvious kind (tracking people down, stopping flows of money, cutting supplies of weapons and explosives) and of a less obvious kind (intelligence that understands the mind of the extremist). A reaction that asserts "these people only understand force" or "these people are psychopaths" does not help. It is potentially more useful -- though much more difficult -- to understand why people are furious enough to commit extreme acts of political violence, often involving their own deaths.

The Power of Humiliation

Terrorism is a calculated act of political violence intended to create maximum public disruption and response. The ultimate aim is psychological intimidation -- to create an environment in which people no longer feel safe. The intelligent response is also, in turn, psychological.

What might it feel like to be Osama bin Laden, or any militant Islamic fundamentalist? Perhaps this:

"The attractiveness of popular western culture -- largely American culture -- is overwhelming. It spurts images and possibilities of fulfilled individual desire (the pursuit of happiness in high consumption environments) and is profoundly corrosive of other societies. It may not entirely dissolve but it certainly modifies them ... spiritual pollution squirts in faster and faster over satellites and cables, like a long term toxic attack"

[see Paul Schulte's essay in Brad Roberts, ed., Hype or Reality? The New Terrorism and Mass Casualty Attacks (CBACI, 2000)].

Such an experience of western culture, one quite commonly expressed across the middle east, can produce seething hostility and aggressive, disgusted reactions. Add to this the humiliation felt by Palestinians, Afghans and now Iraqis as they are forced to submit to roadblocks, strip-searches, curfews and their homes being raided. The theme of humiliation recurs throughout reports and opinion surveys. A March 2004 poll sponsored by ABC News, NHK (Japan), ARD (Germany) and the BBC, with fieldwork by Oxford Research International, found that 41% of Iraqis thought the war had humiliated Iraq.

The act of scrawling an obscene insult -- "Fuck Iraq and every Iraqi in it!" on a bedroom mirror during a house raid -- may appear an isolated, inconsequential event, but a single act of this sort can reaffirm nationalist tendencies in an entire neighbourhood and colour its perception of the American mission.

United States Marines, searching for insurgents in Ramadi, randomly kicked in the doors of houses to shout at the women inside: "'Where's your black mask?' and 'Bitch, where's the guns?'" These soldiers were not taught in advance to respect human decencies and Iraqi cultural norms; the violation involved here is also of the honour of male family members, who in response are likely to seek retaliation for the mistreatment of their wives and sisters.

Humiliation and degradation are ancient and explosive weapons of war, and inevitably produce a backlash. In cultures where the concept of honour is profound, those who humiliate and dehumanise do so at their peril. In doing so, they put a much wider group of citizens at risk.

In Iraq, the sense of powerlessness of ordinary people under Saddam Hussein has been compounded by the humiliation of the invasion and the failures of reconstruction. Alistair Crooke, intelligence officer and former European Union security adviser, directly experienced the US assault on Fallujah. "If you haven't experienced it you can have no idea what it feels like being subjected to bombing of this kind", he says. "The houses which were destroyed had nothing to do with the resistance fighters, who slept in alleyways. And, because bombs were attached to doorbells, the US troops killed the first person they saw as a matter of course. This kind of trauma generates intense hostility", says Crooke. "Even if you are an observer, you can't trust your emotions."


Digg!

Scilla Elworthy is (with Gabrielle Rifkind) author of the report Heart and Minds: human security approaches to political violence, published by the think-tank Demos on 21 July 2005.

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

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
WOW
Posted by: expat in tokyo on Jul 28, 2005 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cant believe I just read such a wonderful desription of one the the key teachings of Christianity: Love thine enemy. If a man stirikes your cheek, turn and offer the other. Even after 2000 years it seems these teachings are the most profound in todays world. And a man who claims to be a Christain(GWB) doesnt open his book to learn anything other than "homosexuality is a sin".

Now Im not a practicing Christian(at least not in the sense I go to church) but I remember enough of the Bible to remember those quotes. Apparently the President doesnt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» right again! Posted by: fjames
Barbara
Posted by: Barbara on Jul 28, 2005 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a hypothetical stand point I agree with you. However, your article completely ignors the reason, for the invasion, bombing and ocupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Many more people are aware of the real reasons for these invasions. That being to secure the resources of these countries, and terrorise their populations into submission and humiliation.
So,....they have been sucessful at least part of the way.

Regardless of whether the military learnt good manners or not,..I think you are ignoring the real issues here. If a country invaded the USA to secure the resources for their own benefit, regardless of how well mannered the invaders were, I'm sure your citizens would react in a similar manner.

Humiliation and submission are one thing. But to know that your culture is being destroyed, along with your family and communities, and that you will ultimately be slaves in your own country, is another. A future I assert that drives people to acts of desperation, such as blowing themselves up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barbara Posted by: Erin
Words of wisdom
Posted by: kgs1947 on Jul 28, 2005 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this thoughtful article. I also agree fully with one of the comments concerning destruction of a people's way of life via humiliation. Bush and his cronies know nothing of respect, listening, empathy, or human rights. This has been proven over and over, not by the media that has done a very poor job of investigative reporting, but by the underground press (alternet, blogs and small cells of resistance in this country). I fear that we will not wake up until it is too late. We have no leaders in this country at this crucial time. Right-wing republicans (lower case because they don't deserve to be known by the name of their ancestors) and democrats (the same) lack the American spirit of democratic leadership of respect and courage. Even our voting is discounted and subject to political manipulation unlike any before it. We have no leader in the White House who was voted by the people, we have no Congress that listens to the rights of common people, we have no nation of integrity. This is depressing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Non-violence against Al-Qaida?
Posted by: brunowe on Jul 28, 2005 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al-Qaida was using its facilities in Afghanistan as a training/logistics base and headquarters. Left unmolested, they would've continued to support their activities out of that country. The idea that non-violent methods would've worked against someone who deliberately targeted civilians is absurd. Likewise, I question the effect that non-violent methods would've had against Al-Qaida's Taliban allies. Al-Qaida personnel were active in the Taliban's campaign against the Northern Alliance and Bin Laden's family and the Taliban leader's were tied by marriage. Although going into Afghanistan didn't destroy Al-Qaida, it did disrupt their operations and had U.S. forces not been diverted into the upcoming invasion of Iraq, it might've done more damage.

As to Iraq, although I consider the invasion to have been unjustified (and the occupation incompetently handled) I question the idea that a regime that survived over a decade of sanctions (and was willing to be utterly ruthless in its desire to hold on to power), was going to be edged out of power by non-violent methods.

What brought down the regimes in Poland and Hungary was not non-violent methods but the economic collapse of their patron while the mass murder sponsored by Indonesia upon East Timor's independence doesn't seem to make it the best example.

I believe that there are times were non-violent opposition is justified and effective, but those instances require that there is some level of either moral restraint and/or a conscience to be shocked (anyone see such techniques working in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Non-violence against Al-Qaida? Posted by: Radicalized
Discouraged and Dissappointed
Posted by: badszy on Jul 28, 2005 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During WW2 my peoples (Polish) suffered most of the actions, that this article describes, under the Germans and latter the Russians. I can't imagine they suffered as much as the Palestians have suffered and for so long under the Jewish Nationalists.
In spite of this abuse of the past I have not seen any seething hate for the abusers as one would expect. The people involved soon forget and time softens their feelings, (except perhaps for the Jewish who find having the world remember furthers their actions), . Their children & family never were exposed to the actual abuse so it dissapears.
Therefore I think that regardless of the actions of our troops, our country and even the Israelies, this will not be a problem in the future and I think our leaders realize this and find it is faster and cheaper to do it their way (and also gives them the way to test out their wonderful machines of war).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deparment of Peace
Posted by: Tory on Jul 28, 2005 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a group of citizens that are lobbying for a Department of Peace. The Secretary of Peace is a presidentially appointed cabinet position that would work towards non violent resolutions both domestically and internationally. This department would employ many of the psychological tools that were mentioned in this article to use communication and understanding to end conflict.
If the ideas presented Scilla Elworthy's article resonate with you, please check out the Department of Peace website for more information www.dopcampaign.org. The legislation for a Department of Peace will be introduced to congress in September of this year.
We must find a better way to end violence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deparment of Peace Posted by: badszy
» imagine all the people... Posted by: fjames
Force =Force
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jul 28, 2005 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anytime force of arms is used against another there will always be backlashes. Force means you have no point so you'll kill to get what you want. Those whom the force is laid on returns the 'favor' because they've had their backs pushed into a corner. If you want Peace.....USE PEACE. Anything less
you'll be pee-ing in the wind,and,we all know what that ends up like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundamental flaws
Posted by: drmeow on Jul 28, 2005 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other posters have very eloquently expressed some of my planned critiques of this piece, namely Barbara and Radicalized. A few points I would like to make:

1) The author does not appear to have read some of Lakshmi Chaudhry’s posts about terrorism. The author uses Northern Ireland and Palestine as examples of why responding to terrorism with violence doesn’t work and then uses Islamic hostility towards Western culture to explain Middle Eastern terrorism. How does the author explain Irish terrorism? Or Timothy McVeigh? Ms. Chaudhry provides some excellent points about the nature of terrorism.

2) The author argues that we need “intelligence: intelligence of the obvious kind (tracking people down, stopping flows of money, cutting supplies of weapons and explosives) and of a less obvious kind (intelligence that understands the mind of the extremist).” How about a little justice, too. Without justice, all the intelligence in the world will only enable us to catch individual terrorists or groups of terrorists, it will not stop more people from becoming terrorists.

3) Many of the places where there is, or has been, terrorism, the “terrorism” (or “freedom fighting” or “resistance”) has been largely a response to violent imperialism. The English took over Ireland. Zionist terrorists in the 40’s and 50’s prevented the previous imperialists, the British, from making good on their promise to give Palestinians back their sovereignty after WWII (including using mail bombs, assassinations, and car bombs). The French Resistance committed acts that the German’s undoubtedly called terrorism during the German occupation of France. We used the 1st Gulf War to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East. We invaded Iraq to establish a puppet government and permanent military bases. (In fact, has there been a time in the past 50 years when the US was NOT committing or helping some other country commit acts of violence against Arabs?) The author talks about the behavior of soldiers affecting Iraqi’s “perception of the American mission” - the “American mission” IS the problem and cause of the terrorism, not the Iraqis perception of it!

If we really want to ever stop terrorism, we need to end imperialism AND use some of the author’s suggested approaches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Precision Force
Posted by: The Southpaw on Jul 28, 2005 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Elworthy's ideas are quite inspiring, and deserve additional consideration and use, I unfortunately do not share her optimism in some regards. While it would be preferable to solve the terrorism problem through peaceful means, and while these tactics will greatly reduce the threat, there will always be those who use terror as a means of warfare.

One of the greatest flaws of the Iraq war, besides its obvious illegalities and mis-planning, is the fact that US forces have tried to fight the insurgency with all the subtly of a bull in a china shop. As Elworthy described in the article, the lack of understanding of local customs and complete disregard of human rights by US forces has only damaged US-Iraqi relations.

While the damage caused in Iraq cannot be so easily undone, the West can still try to minimize loss of life while still pursuing al-Qaeda. The use of peaceful persuasion can help to erode it's popular support in the Middle East, but Osama and his hard-core followers will still need to be dealt with. Precision force, through the use of Special Forces units mainly, will be our best method of bringing him to justice. Such teams recognize the need for subtlety and respecting civilian life and customs, and can minimize unintended loss while completing their objectives. Let's not forget that bin Ladin is a mass murderer, and should be brought to justice like any other criminal. Try to gain some level of reconcilation with the Arab world, all the while bringing this "War on Terror" to an actual close.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Real Terrorists
Posted by: pjrsullivan on Jul 28, 2005 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look to the seat of power to find the true criminals. The governments of the world are the true terrorists, and when what passes for a "Terrorist attack, it is most often the same government using their secret operatives to committ the deed.

The greatest terrorist act in history was the nuclear attack upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather than end the terror, the International members of the Merchant Murder Class, decided it was high time to bring the terror to a new and improved level, ending in the extermination of the mass of the human race.

The unknown higher level powers have intervened, so far anyways, to prevent our destruction at the hands of our nuclear war criminals and other high contracting parties and their hired terrorists

Wake up folks; This old Crown colony run at the behest of the Anglo-Sheeny Bankster alliance is going down, the only question is, are they going to take us all with them?

They have already tried repeatedly to nuke us, and are going on the principle; if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

If the current batch of war criminals attack Iran, the fuse will have been lit, and we may finally become what Americas golden boys have wanted us to be from the beginning, nuclear waste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Putting property ahead of people?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 31, 2005 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who condemns Native Americans for 'terrorism' in their defense against the european invasion of North America?

Has not history showed that the invaders had genocidal intent?

How are the invaders of Iraq different?

Ask Native Americans what the results of losing the war are. As with other life on this planet, the disease of euro-centric violence cares nothing for future generations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]