A Farewell to Arms
I'm not sure who among you does and doesn't check international news regularly. Some of you will have seen last July that the Irish Republican Army renounced violence. Several days ago, the Basque group eta announced a ceasefire as well. These are two of the only foreign terrorist organizations listed on the State Department list of foreign terror organizations.
If you ask me, these renunciations of violence have at least part of their root in the War on Terror. The IRA and their affiliated organizations, Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland political party) and Republican Sinn Fein (Republic of Ireland political party) have been very critical of President Bush for refusing any dealings with them due to their connections to terrorism. My guess is that ETA is roughly the same story. In a post 9/11, 3/11, 7/7 world, political legitimacy and the threat of armed conflict are incompatible in the Western world, and these groups have realized that and walked away from decades of violence. They have realized that angry or not, the strategy for accomplishing their political goals can't include violence.
This shows one of the major differences between the developed world and the developing world. For example, look at the contrasts. Both the IRA and ETA were known to call in bomb threats prior to detonation; not in all cases, but in many. I've done more reading about the IRA, but I know that both the IRA and ETA have had both political and military wings; in the case of the IRA, the paramilitary IRA was affiliated with Sinn Fein, the political party. They also tended to demonstrate some limitations in targeting; for example, one would expect to be safe aboard a school bus.
Compare this to the terrorism we see in the developing world, primarily in Central/South America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, et cetera). In the Middle East in particular, a terrorist organization might completely eschew political involvement. While groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah/al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are both political and military simultaneously, groups like al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf have no political involvement whatsoever. I'm not well enough educated on the terrorist groups in Central and South America to comment, but I'm under the impression that these groups are much closer in both modus operandi and organizational makeup to the Islamist terror groups than they are to the IRA or ETA.
Also, as I mentioned before, one could generally expect that if they were on a school bus or in a cafe, they wouldn't have to fear an IRA or ETA bomb. While these Western groups didn't restrict themselves to military and government targets, they didn't generally target women and children, though there were exceptions. Islamist terrorists, on the other hand, have made a point of bombing coffee houses, pizzerias, and even school buses in Israel. They've targeted police recruiting stations, hotels, and any number of other "soft" targets in Iraq; some of you might even remember that during the first Iraqi election in January of '05, the terrorists rigged a bomb to a mentally handicapped kid in a wheelchair. No form of terrorism reaches any level of civilization, but one can agree that terrorists are particularly and especially vile when they make a point of targeting children.
As I've researched this subject in the past, it's brought me to a conclusion: in the West, one can not have true political legitimacy if their political demands are backed up by a threat of violence; this is to say, violence is only acceptable in the West if the threat is from a legitimate government in the interests of maintaining order and security. In the West, an independent political party or interest group loses all legitimacy if they attempt to secure their demands through the use of violence. In the developing world, the opposite is the case: while some groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah) seek to work through a political/civil process, they possess no power or legitimacy unless their party has a credible paramilitary capacity. In fact, as we see from al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Ansar al-Islam, and other terrorist organizations, a political wing is often seen as trivial, or even as an impediment.
So, the War on Terror has led to tentative ends to political violence in Northern Ireland and the Basque region of France and Spain; this is in addition to the Libyan surrender of WMD programs and terrorist sponsorship. This is the reasonable response that we can expect from a combination of political/diplomatic pressure and a credible threat of force. However, the fact that Islamist groups are willing to kidnap, torture, and even kill foreign aid workers, or bomb school buses and pizzerias, should serve as confirmation that Islamist terror groups are not comparable to groups like the IRA or ETA, and a simple application of political and diplomatic pressure will do little to end Islamist terrorism. Overwhelming force is required.
Thus saith the Fly.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention something when I wrote the post up. On my flight to Texas (prior to arriving in Denver, I think) I read an excellent book, Shadow War by Richard Miniter. The whole book's a great read, and I especially loved chapter four in which Miniter documents the alliances that the Bush Administration has forged with nations like Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania; apparently al Qaeda has attempted, with some degree of success, to set up a new stronghold in North Africa, where the terrain and culture are helpful to their attempts to hide and build their strength.
However, the point of bringing up the book is that the final chapter, titled "Bombs and Ballots: The Madrid Attack and the American Election", discusses the 3/11 attack on Madrid. It has some good information on ETA, their history, and why the government of Jose Maria Aznar had good reason to believe that it was ETA, and not an al Qaeda affiliate, that carried out the attacks. It also fleshes out the reasons why Aznar's government was believed to be deceiving the Spanish people, even though their position was one of caution as they continued to investigate. I highly recommend it.
If you ask me, these renunciations of violence have at least part of their root in the War on Terror. The IRA and their affiliated organizations, Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland political party) and Republican Sinn Fein (Republic of Ireland political party) have been very critical of President Bush for refusing any dealings with them due to their connections to terrorism. My guess is that ETA is roughly the same story. In a post 9/11, 3/11, 7/7 world, political legitimacy and the threat of armed conflict are incompatible in the Western world, and these groups have realized that and walked away from decades of violence. They have realized that angry or not, the strategy for accomplishing their political goals can't include violence.
This shows one of the major differences between the developed world and the developing world. For example, look at the contrasts. Both the IRA and ETA were known to call in bomb threats prior to detonation; not in all cases, but in many. I've done more reading about the IRA, but I know that both the IRA and ETA have had both political and military wings; in the case of the IRA, the paramilitary IRA was affiliated with Sinn Fein, the political party. They also tended to demonstrate some limitations in targeting; for example, one would expect to be safe aboard a school bus.
Compare this to the terrorism we see in the developing world, primarily in Central/South America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, et cetera). In the Middle East in particular, a terrorist organization might completely eschew political involvement. While groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah/al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are both political and military simultaneously, groups like al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf have no political involvement whatsoever. I'm not well enough educated on the terrorist groups in Central and South America to comment, but I'm under the impression that these groups are much closer in both modus operandi and organizational makeup to the Islamist terror groups than they are to the IRA or ETA.
Also, as I mentioned before, one could generally expect that if they were on a school bus or in a cafe, they wouldn't have to fear an IRA or ETA bomb. While these Western groups didn't restrict themselves to military and government targets, they didn't generally target women and children, though there were exceptions. Islamist terrorists, on the other hand, have made a point of bombing coffee houses, pizzerias, and even school buses in Israel. They've targeted police recruiting stations, hotels, and any number of other "soft" targets in Iraq; some of you might even remember that during the first Iraqi election in January of '05, the terrorists rigged a bomb to a mentally handicapped kid in a wheelchair. No form of terrorism reaches any level of civilization, but one can agree that terrorists are particularly and especially vile when they make a point of targeting children.
As I've researched this subject in the past, it's brought me to a conclusion: in the West, one can not have true political legitimacy if their political demands are backed up by a threat of violence; this is to say, violence is only acceptable in the West if the threat is from a legitimate government in the interests of maintaining order and security. In the West, an independent political party or interest group loses all legitimacy if they attempt to secure their demands through the use of violence. In the developing world, the opposite is the case: while some groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah) seek to work through a political/civil process, they possess no power or legitimacy unless their party has a credible paramilitary capacity. In fact, as we see from al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Ansar al-Islam, and other terrorist organizations, a political wing is often seen as trivial, or even as an impediment.
So, the War on Terror has led to tentative ends to political violence in Northern Ireland and the Basque region of France and Spain; this is in addition to the Libyan surrender of WMD programs and terrorist sponsorship. This is the reasonable response that we can expect from a combination of political/diplomatic pressure and a credible threat of force. However, the fact that Islamist groups are willing to kidnap, torture, and even kill foreign aid workers, or bomb school buses and pizzerias, should serve as confirmation that Islamist terror groups are not comparable to groups like the IRA or ETA, and a simple application of political and diplomatic pressure will do little to end Islamist terrorism. Overwhelming force is required.
Thus saith the Fly.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention something when I wrote the post up. On my flight to Texas (prior to arriving in Denver, I think) I read an excellent book, Shadow War by Richard Miniter. The whole book's a great read, and I especially loved chapter four in which Miniter documents the alliances that the Bush Administration has forged with nations like Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania; apparently al Qaeda has attempted, with some degree of success, to set up a new stronghold in North Africa, where the terrain and culture are helpful to their attempts to hide and build their strength.
However, the point of bringing up the book is that the final chapter, titled "Bombs and Ballots: The Madrid Attack and the American Election", discusses the 3/11 attack on Madrid. It has some good information on ETA, their history, and why the government of Jose Maria Aznar had good reason to believe that it was ETA, and not an al Qaeda affiliate, that carried out the attacks. It also fleshes out the reasons why Aznar's government was believed to be deceiving the Spanish people, even though their position was one of caution as they continued to investigate. I highly recommend it.
1 Comments:
And now, what are we going to do to stop a religious lunatic like George W. Bush and his team of terrorist neo-cons from murdering dozens of thousands of innocent civilians over oil profits?
Post a Comment
<< Home