We have no idea what we mean by “winning the war on terror”
Since there is a war on terrorism, has anyone bothered to ask how we will know when we’ve won? What will winning look like? Will it be an interminable peace where people sit around gazing at their navels, sometimes getting up to wander through beds of roses? If that is our aim, I would suggest that our current efforts are driven by a naïve view of how human beings function. Since Adam first tried to add fruit to his diet, we’ve been singing and writing and prophesying and dreaming our way to a vision of peace while continuing to bash in our neighbour’s head. History teaches that we are equally adept at longing for a return to Eden and at blowing things up; that perhaps our very capacity to long for Eden depends upon our instinct for blowing things up. If we have advanced at all, it is in our meta-view of our dual talents: now, we ram our peace down people’s throats and blow up those who threaten to blow things up. For the sake of consistency, we may have no choice but to blow ourselves up, and that could well come to pass.
One cannot intelligently undertake anything without first laying down a goal. If western U.N. sponsored troops wish to wage their war on terrorism with intelligence, then they must do so in accordance with a mandate. The mandate will help them decide precisely how they should proceed, it will give them a measuring stick against which to gauge their progress, and it will tell them when they have achieved their objective. However, because the goal has been stated in the vaguest of terms (“to win the war on terrorism”), it is safe to say that our most potent weapon—intelligence—has yet to be deployed. We will simply go on waging our war until the only people left who blow things up are us. It is one thing to say: “We will push the Nazis out of France.” or “We will force the Japanese to surrender Java.” But it is quite another thing to say: “We will force people to change their attitude; we will force them to play nicely.”
At least as frightening as terrorism is the state to which much of America aspires: a state of ignorant isolationism (a disorder sometimes referred to as II or, more colloquially, as “all I and no U”). With meetings this week in Windsor, Ontario between mayors from Canada and the United States, the focus of discussions has been around the economic impact of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) which would require a passport for travel across the Canada/U.S. border. Statistics have emerged concerning the number of U.S. citizens who currently have passports. See Phil Gyford’s website for a survey of the conflicting data. It doesn’t matter which figure you choose, the percentage is abysmal and points to the fact that an overwhelming number of Americans (at least 75%) never anticipate travelling beyond North America. Some rationalize the figure by pointing out that America is a large country with large oceans to the east and west that make it expensive for the average American to travel to Europe or Asia. True enough. But compare the Canadian statistic (40% of Canadians hold passports) which, ironically, is presented by a U.S. State Department briefing on the WHTI. Geographically, Canadians are worse off than Americans: not only do we have oceans to the east and west, but another ocean to the north and a cultural wasteland to the south. So the American explanation doesn’t really hold water.
A YaleGlobal article points to other telling signs of ignorant/isolationism (II). For example, a National Geographic survey found that 30% of Americans believe the country’s population is between one and two billion people. And most Americans accept that the rest of the world is beating down their doors trying to get in.
Time to dispel some myths. First, the population of the the United States of America is 299.3 million people, or roughly 4.5 percent of the world’s population and 22.7% of China’s population. Second, not everybody on the planet wants to be an American. I remember how, as a kid driving in the car with my grandmother (who grew up just outside Boston), she would say “Three cheers for the red, white and blue” whenever we drove past an American flag. Then she’d holiday with her sister in Georgia, or brother in New Hampshire or other family in Florida or South Dakota, and always it was the same when she returned: “Thank God I’m home.” Yes, it is possible for someone to start life in America and decide she would rather live elsewhere. Of course the way my grandmother talked never changed. Everything was always a “good idear” and kids wore sneakers instead of runners. But I forgive her.
The chief problem with isolationism is that the world’s most powerful military presence receives its mandate from voters who are utterly disengaged from issues of foreign policy. They just don’t give a shit what happens in the rest of the world. Why is it surprising then that much of the world doesn’t give a shit right back at them? At home, Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, but abroad, their lives are often regarded as worthless. Witness what happens when military personnel are captured by al Qaeda soldiers. How many survive? Al Qaeda does not use American soldiers as bargaining chips to gain an advantage; it uses them as symbolic representatives and vents its rage against all America by desecrating their remains. As people, they are worthless.
Don’t misunderstand me. I grieve these soldiers. I have cousins who have served in the U.S. military, some as careerists. I take no relish in the thought that these young men and women might come to harm. I merely point out that many will come to harm as long as America, as a people, remains so disengaged.
Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Defense Current Photos [Public domain] – see Wikimedia Commons.