A quick response to the discussion of terror
I agree that it is unlikely that a war on “terror” could ever be won, but I would like to play devil’s advocate for a moment. As stated in class, terror is a method, not something concrete which can be located and destroyed. However, there are offensive security measures that can be taken to effectively reduce the occurrence of terrorism. In my ID 1 class we are currently studying the Israel-Palestine conflict. We have read texts in which Palestinian extremists admit that security measures taken by Israel in occupied territories (regardless of whether they are just or unjust) have made it more difficult for for these extremists to carry out terrorist attacks. Though in no way am I arguing for the war on terror, or the L.A.P.D. gathering of data on Muslim communities, it should be noted that proactive actions taken with the goal of eliminating terrorism can prove effective in thwarting attacks.
sean wrote:
Really good points. I think you are on target here when we need to distinguish between internal “security” measures and a global response to terror. Many of the security measures post-9/11 make sense (increased airport, port security, even surveillance of public places like trains stations etc) in preventing violence. But the response to terror on a larger geopolitical scale is hard for me at least to understand. Despite what it may sound like, I approach this from a position of humility: I just don’t understand. How could the current strategies of violence against civilian populations in Iraq fail to do anything but produce more terror? The war in Iraq makes no sense to me for the reasons given originally: WMD, etc. If however the war on Iraq were explained as quickly producing the inevitable and giving it a bounded geographic locus: “create” more terrorists by invading Iraq by giving them something to focus their energies on far away from the US, then I could understand that, I think. I might object on moral and humanitarian grounds, but it would have a kind of awful, cruel logic. It makes sense because at least it’s a narrative that has a recognizable shape. “Saddam has WMDs” was a narrative as well, but once debunked, a new one needs to take its place (and none has had any staying power, I think).
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 12:48 pm ¶
manayo wrote:
Eliminating terrorism should be just as easy as the fight to eliminate communism. I think the Bush administration and many before them do believe they are “taking proactive actions with the goal of eliminating [insert cause here]“. But terrorism, communism, even democracy are ideological states of mind, and I fail to understand how, for example, a “war on terrorism” will remove these ideological roots from the nations against which war is waged, and the individuals who become terrorists.
Your use of ‘thwart’ is pertinent here. Every nation has the right to prevent and subvert attacks on itself. But when a government moves into direct conflict with another nation to eliminate potential future attack(er)s, well, how is that different from say, filling a village with brainwashed people and calling for democracy? Patrick McGoohan himself said in 1977 “…We all live in a little Village… Your village may be different from other people’s villages but we are all prisoners.”
Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 2:37 pm ¶
Samantha wrote:
I think you also have to look at the connotations of the word “terrorismâ€. As Said wrote: “terrorism has come to signify ‘our’ view of everything in the world that seems inimical to our interests, army, policy, or values†(254). He also points out a quote from an Israeli paratrooper that I found particularly interesting: “‘every Palestinian is automatically a suspected terrorist and by our definition of the term it is actually true’†(255). I agree with Manayo that terrorism is an ideological state of mind, especially when it implicates such a wide scope of activity. This ideology cannot be eradicated, especially when applying the term “terrorist†is so reactive and defensive in nature. It seems to me that “thwarting†attacks is only truly thwarting when it’s not an offensive action—an action so utterly preemptive as a “war on terrorâ€.
Also, just an idea in response to Sean’s comment: do you think that terrorism is a funnel for the constant desire that we talked about in relation to Lathe of Heaven? Could the war on Iraq just be an effort to shift this particular manifestation of this desire to a different focus? Is that what you meant at all? It makes sense to me that terrorism is one way for desire to surface. Perhaps this is why it is an ideology: because it relates the individual’s desire to their conditions of existence. Certain conditions of existence fuel the idea of terrorism as a useful (maybe they see it as the only) course of action for some people or groups of people. Just some thoughts…
Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 6:56 pm ¶
hammad wrote:
Sam, I think your point about desire is valid. I feel like the blanketing terms of “terrorâ€, “terrorismâ€, and “terrorist†fulfill the desire to transferring blame from “us†to “themâ€. For example, after 9/11, the focus on finding and catching terrorists seemed to detract from other problems that needed to be addressed. Problems such as an economic recession were, in my opinion, placed on a back burner and relatively insignificant at the time. We as a nation were able to unite under a common mission as opposed to continuously bickering over various domestic inadequacies. President Bush’s popularity soared, as he promised and delivered a forceful American response to terrorism, which was especially evident in the dismantling of Afghanistan. Times were bad in the sense that we had been attacked, but our desire to blame someone or something for our problems was now transferred to those “terrorists.†That desire persists today, which I believe is unfortunately evident from the news article we saw on Friday about the LAPD’s counterterrorism bureau wanting to gather information about Muslims in the LA area.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 5:37 pm ¶
Holler wrote:
In response to Manayo, I would agree that the war on terrorism cannot defeat terrorism, but disagree with the statement that terrorism can be as easily defeated as communism. To shed light on terrorism as an idea and symbol, I find it useful to analyze Baudrillard’s words on The Spirit of Terrorism. While both communism and terrorism at some level operate as ISAs, terrorism as Baudrillard says “is everywhere.” The prevalence of terrorism as a function of society is pervasive albeit covert. Terrorism embodies not a form of government or a lifestyle, but life itself. Terrorists can adapt to democracy, using its weapons against it, but beyond this, hold a further weapon: death. In this terrorism confronts life (or the sacrifice of life) in a way that communism or any political ideology cannot. Terrorism percolates through our democracy as much as it does through the Middle East and as such, cannot be eradicated. While terrorism operates as an ISA, it also exists as an ideology and as, I would argue, a life of its own that cannot be defeated by the forces that triumphed over communism (or by force, period).
Posted 15 Nov 2007 at 5:52 pm ¶