Today's Topic



Post-Iraq Views
of the New Year,
Part I

Part II
Part III
Part IV

Natalia J. Garland

Print Version

The year 2009 brings us to over seven years of having lived without a terrorist attack on American soil. However, the recent attacks on Mumbai, India, to which some Indians refer as their 9/11 awakening (even though India has been attacked before), remind us that we are always vulnerable to another attack on our country. My wish for the New Year is that we will all agree, in thoughtful retrospection, on certain realities of terrorism. If we can reach a point of common understanding about the nature and purpose of terrorism, perhaps we can then renew discussion of ways to protect the civilized world.

Let's begin with a review of what the past has taught us, and then discuss new directions for overcoming terrorist activity. Can we all agree on the following?


What Americans Have Learned
Since September 11, 2001

  1. Military intervention can be successful. War [justified war] becomes unpopular when victory is obstructed by strategical errors, when the news media provides biased coverage, and when a nation loses its collective will to win.
  2. Peaceful co-existence with terrorists is not possible since the goal of terrorism is to dominate and control: (A) through conversion to Islam, (B) through humiliation and oppression, (C) through disruption and chaos, (D) through death.
  3. National security rests not only on military effectiveness, but also on accurate intelligence-gathering, border enforcement, and homeland vigilance.
  4. Any attempts at diplomacy with anti-democratic leaders or nations is futile unless backed by U.S. military power and supported by U.S. allies.
  5. The terrorists are Islamic extremists (i.e., there is no comparable hatred or aggression coming from Christians, Buddhists, etc.).
  6. There is absolutely no normalcy or genuine spirituality that can be attributed to or associated with terrorism, even though terrorists murder in the name of God.
  7. The psychological, sociological, and cultural explanations for terrorism are helpful only in understanding and preventing the recruitment of young or new terrorists (i.e., there can be no political justification for or apologetic tolerance of terrorism).
  8. Some terrorists come from backgrounds of affluence and higher education.
  9. Terrorism is primarily a matter of fanatic Islamic ideology. Factors such as poverty, ignorance, or alienation are of secondary influence (i.e., people of other cultures also live in poverty, etc., but do not react by killing innocent civilians).
  10. Terrorist hatred and aggression are directed toward America, Europe, Israel, democracies, and free-market systems.
  11. Terrorist warfare is focused on civilians, especially civilians located at government, business, and transportation facilities.
  12. Terrorists divide the world into two groups of people: Muslims and infidels.
  13. The war on terror is a contest between barbarism and civilization.
  14. Suicide bombers are the major form of terrorist infiltration and warfare.
  15. Nuclear weapons are becoming a major terrorist threat to the civilized world.


Some people maintain that the Iraq War was wrong from the beginning. Some who concluded later (after no W.M.D. were found) that the Iraq War was wrong, now question whether a decision for war should ever be based on intelligence-gathering alone. In other words, intelligence can be inaccurate. And, still other people believe that the Iraq War was justified (even without the threat of W.M.D.) in order to remove Saddam Hussein (who was responsible for killing up to two million innocent people).* However, most Americans--and this is currently an important crossroads of agreement--believe that military action is justified and necessary under certain conditions. Few people are committed to a lifestyle of total non-violence.

Nonetheless, there is a new, post-Iraq, anti-war stance: the more we kill our enemies, the more they increase. There seem to be two versions of this view. (1) The war on terror is perceived as a war on all Muslims. This has caused an increase in the hatred of America and, consequently, in the numbers of people willing to serve the cause of violent jihad. The Iraq War provided a training ground for jihadists. (2) We are confronted with hatred--as a whole and consuming quality or force--and we, in our human nature, need to identify and label it as belonging to certain groups or leaders. Hence, it cannot be overcome by the killing of human bodies. It continues to spread because it has not been destroyed in its essence.

The post-Iraq modifications of anti-war preferences might be summarized as follows.


Post-Iraq, Anti-War Assertions

  1. Non-violence: War is wrong under any circumstances. The Iraq War was wrong from the beginning, as are all wars. This assertion was also evident during the Vietnam War. This is the difference between then and now: war is believed to cause an increase in the enemy's numbers and strength of purpose.
  2. Non-military: Military intervention is given credence but is insufficient to overcome the essence of terrorism: which is pure hatred. Americans must respond morally, spiritually, and imaginatively in order to draw people away from hatred. Hatred inspires more hatred.


Are the above assertions accurate? Given that the military surge in Iraq has been successful, and that Iraqis are now able to debate their differences and to hold elections, it is not apparent that the terrorists have multiplied due to an increased dedication to jihad. On the contrary, it appears that violent jihad has failed in Iraq, despite military errors and despite low opinion of America (or, specifically, hatred of George W. Bush) and of the Iraq War. In fact, there are reports that some Al Qaeda members themselves are disappointed in violent jihad and are tired of the horrors of war.

If the number of terrorists has increased, and if such an increase is connected to the Iraq War, then this needs to be proved. Where are the statistics? Where is the indisputable evidence? If the activity of terrorists has increased, this could be due to variables other than reaction to the Iraq War. The goal of Islamic extremism is world domination. It follows, therefore, that terrorists will continue violent jihad until they have achieved their goal or have been stopped.

Is non-violence or pacifism a possible solution? Let us remember that the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993, and that the U.S.S. Cole was attacked in 2000. America did not respond to those attacks militarily. The lack of military retaliation seems only to have emboldened the terrorists to continue their attacks. America's restraint and tolerance did not decrease the terrorists' hatred. It could be argued, however, that America did not engage in any pro-active outreach to those troubled areas of the world, but simply backed down from conflict. It could also be argued that a military response in 1993 would have prevented the 2000 and 2001 attacks. Perhaps, today, we would still be a country that had never experienced a terrorist attack on its own soil.

What about the assertion that hatred is spreading as a quality? In other words, hatred has an emotional or mental force, infecting humans and spreading from one human to another. It may have historical roots, but in its essence it is the same hatred that has existed on earth since the beginning of time. From this view, those who feel such hatred are possibly psychologically or culturally infected. Although military action may eliminate certain hateful groups or persons which pose imminent threat, such action will not destroy the virus which causes the hatred to spread.

What do the new post-Iraq views have in common? There is some improvement between the Iraq and post-Iraq anti-war preferences. (1) Terrorism is acknowledged. (2) There is agreement that terrorism must be stopped. (3) Although there is still some tendency to blame America, it is not so severe as the 9/11 conspiracy theories or the attitude that America got what it deserved. (4) Although there is still some naivete or denial regarding the causes of terrorism, there are also attempts at problem-solving.

But what are these non-military ideas for stopping the spread of hatred and the activities of terrorists? The following is my own list of possibilities.


Post-Iraq, Non-military
Responses to Terrorism

  1. Strengthen relations with America's allies.
  2. Develop new allies.
  3. Provide humanitarian aid, demand accountability for distribution of aid, and expect friendship with America.
  4. Train our allies' police and military to become self-sufficient, and expect alignment with human rights and the establishment of constitutional governments.
  5. Improve our intelligence-gathering systems.
  6. Solicit the help of moderate Muslims.
  7. Re-vitalize the Peace Corps.
  8. Study terrorist prevention and rehabilitation programs. Support these programs if effective.
  9. Support educational and arts programs for boys and girls throughout the world.
  10. Permit citizen groups to conduct humanitarian projects in other countries. The U.S. government must provide sanction and protection for appropriate projects.
  11. Groups that attempt projects without U.S. awareness are responsible for insuring worker safety, and must inform the host countries that they do not officially represent America.
  12. Anyone employed by or serving in any U.S. sanctioned, anti-terror capacity must have knowledge of the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and must pass a college-level test on U.S. government.
  13. Anti-terror participants must also have a thorough knowledge of the culture and history of the peoples with whom or countries in which they work.
  14. Homeland projects should be conducted in areas in which the youth or others might be vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.
  15. An anti-terror lexicon must be developed for common usage, accurately defining the issues and goals of both military and non-military responses to terrorism. This lexicon must transcend political correctness.


In order for any non-military activities to be effective, there are some psychological pre-conditions that must be met. In addition to the military errors of the Iraq War, there have also been errors of perception regarding the causes of terrorism (and hence the solutions to terrorism) among the anti-war advocates.


Pre-conditions for Non-military Responses

  1. Stop the excessive introspection into America's faults (real, exaggerated, or imagined).
  2. Stop the focus on the hatred of George W. Bush.
  3. Stop the emphasis on looking for the sociological root-causes of terrorism, and face the ideological reality of terrorism.
  4. Stop the apologetic tolerance of terrorism.
  5. Stop the self-hate, self-blame, and self-torment.


Before I conclude, let me make it clear that I favor military intervention when the circumstances cannot be managed in other ways. And, I reject pacifism as having any positive application to terrorist activity. Non-military responses are not alternatives to war: if war is necessary, then that means other measures have already been ruled out as possibilities. It could also mean that other programs, alliances, or interventions have been tried and have failed, and therefore war is the only solution. I view non-military responses as within the realm of international relationships. Moreover, the successful outcome of non-military responses might depend on police or military protection of workers.

So, how can people effectively participate in non-military responses to terrorism? It requires will. Those who want to overcome terrorist hatred and attacks via non-military solutions, must have the same strength of will as the terrorists. Terrorists are willing to die for the cause of violent jihad. Suicide bombers are regarded as martyrs. Americans who are anti-war or who advocate for non-military responses to terrorism, must also be willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause of civilization. Without this same level of dedication, the terrorists will eventually rule the earth. Even with such dedication on the part of citizens, there is still the possibility that terrorists will use nuclear power.

Not only would the non-military responses have to be conducted at the risk of one's life, but such responses would have to be offered without diminishing the significance of America's largesse. Americans would need to present themselves as courageous helpers, respectful of other cultures while also feeling a healthy pride in Americana. In other words, they must be compassionate patriots. And, they must sincerely believe that Western Civilization is worth saving.

How many Americans would be willing to serve in the Peace Corps or teach school children in dangerous parts of the world? How many would leave their jobs and the comfort of home? How many would have to be killed before any worldwide stability was achieved? How many suicide bombers would find these volunteers and teachers to be easy targets? There could be more dead American civilians than there were soldiers in Iraq. That does not mean non-military ideas should be discarded, but only that non-military intervention could also be perceived as a war on terror and not welcomed. (Written 01/01/09: bibliography available.)

[*ADDED NOTE: To read about the uncovering of the mass graves of some of Saddam's victims, see: "Witness to Genocide," by Heather Pringle, Archaeology magazine, January/February 2009, pp. 28-35, 64, 65.] (Written 01/19/09)

Until we meet again..............stay sane.

Find More Topics in the Table of Contents

Return to Homepage


Copyright 2009 Natalia J. Garland