EvanL
07-20-2005, 04:01 PM
Sun Jul 17 2005
By J. F. CONWAY
MODERN terrorism is a political act rooted in the politics of desperation, revenge and fear. Terrorist tactics are typically the desperate acts of a militarily defeated and weaker foe against the conqueror, a more powerful enemy.
One purpose of terrorism is to rally support among the vanquished by affirming that the struggle goes on. Another is revenge, pure and simple -- to inflict pain and suffering on the conqueror as payback for the pain and suffering of the conquered.
The most important political purpose, however, is fear -- to engender fear in the ranks of the conqueror and its citizens in an effort to weaken resolve for the conflict, or to undermine political support for it.
London was bombed primarily for the third purpose -- to engender public fear and to weaken political support for the Blair government's continuing involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and, of course, its support for Israel in Palestine).
The results of such tactics are never certain. The bombings in Madrid led to Spain's withdrawal from Iraq, but the bombings in Bali, targeting Australians, stiffened the Australian government's resolve to stay the course. It's too early to assess the political impacts of the London bombings, though Britain's long experience with IRA bombings and early public reactions suggest that the attack will not lead to Blair's abandonment of his support for the Iraq policy of George W. Bush.
Indeed, since Britons have already voiced majority opposition to the Iraq war, the bombings may have the opposite effect and undermine the British anti-war movement.
Official responses to the London bombings have been shallow and manipulative, while the press reaction has been hysterical. Clearly the bombings happened because of Britain's involvement in Iraq, not -- as both Blair and Bush claim in their analogies to Nazi Germany's bombing of civilian targets during World War II -- out of some wish to attack democracy and our western way of life. This is nonsense. Osama bin Laden and his forces are not about to launch an invasion of the British Isles, followed by a ruthless and bloody occupation and the imposition of a radical Islamic theocracy.
Bin Laden has always been clear about his objectives -- to force the U.S. and its allies out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq, and out of the Middle East. The unwillingness of Britain and the U.S. (and Canada as well, given its junior junior role in Afghanistan) to do so has more to do with western geopolitical power games and oil than with our way of life and democracy.
The response of our Minister of Public Security, Anne McLellan, should worry Canadians since she denies any connection to Iraq (or Afghanistan) and babbles on about "transcendent global issues that go well beyond any specific action in Iraq."
If, in McLellan's mind, these "transcendent global issues" concerned power politics and energy supplies, perhaps the minister would be on to something. But alas, this is not the case, for she too seems to feel that terrorism is some sort of global miasma drifting around the world, striking here and there against our way of life and democracy.
The minister should wake up to reality if she really intends to protect the security of Canadians. Canada is on Osama bin Laden's list -- he has said so himself -- over our involvement in Afghanistan. Why are we there? To save our way of life and democracy? No, we are there because our government caved to pressure from Bush and our own business lobby -- which thinks that standing firm on international law and peaceful political settlements, rather than joining Bush's illegal wars of occupation, would hurt our economic relationship with the Americans.
If McLellan really wants to protect us from acts of terrorism, Canada should bring our troops home and condemn the illegal war of occupation against Iraq.
Modern terrorism, like all wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, has embraced the concept of "total war" -- that is, war that makes little distinction between military and civilian targets or personnel. The numbers of civilians killed or injured in recent wars far outstrip military casualties.
Hitler used total war, and the Allies responded with Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. used total war in its undeclared adventures in Indochina, and again in its punishment of Iraq during the First Gulf War -- the annihilation of thousands of unarmed Iraqi troops fleeing homeward, the bombardment of Baghdad, years of trade sanctions leading to thousands of civilian deaths, and repeated bombing sorties. Israel uses total war whenever reprisals are taken against the civilian Palestinian population for terrorist attacks in Israel. The most recent war in Iraq, according to the Red Cross, has resulted in an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths, far exceeding military losses.
Gone are the old gentlemanly and glorious wars of old. And gone are the old romantic terrorists who targeted their victims carefully -- American snipers in the War of Independence who ambushed British troops as they marched in formation, helping to achieve the victory of 1776; Likud's terrorist attacks on British military and administrative personnel, which helped create the state of Israel; the early IRA campaign of assassination against military, political and administrative leaders, which helped create the Irish Free State; and terrorist attacks on U.S. Marines in Beirut, which led to an American withdrawal.
In recent years, as obvious military and political targets have been hardened, terrorists have begun to attack softer civilian targets. And as the targets get softer and softer, the odds of terrorist successes, especially in open societies, increase. Which brings us back to the obvious conclusion -- only political solutions to these underlying conflicts will bring us security.
The London bombings are, in one way, a breakthrough for Osama bin Laden. The bombers were not foreigners, but British born and bred -- apparently moderate and well-educated Muslims. So we may now be confronting a new form of terrorism -- local copy-cat terrorists, acting on their own and without central direction to support al-Qaida and suicide bombings of civilian targets elsewhere.
Such individuals are far below the radar screens of the increasingly elaborate anti-terrorist security system, and virtually impossible to detect until the deed is done.
J.F. Conway is a University of Regina political sociologist.
By J. F. CONWAY
MODERN terrorism is a political act rooted in the politics of desperation, revenge and fear. Terrorist tactics are typically the desperate acts of a militarily defeated and weaker foe against the conqueror, a more powerful enemy.
One purpose of terrorism is to rally support among the vanquished by affirming that the struggle goes on. Another is revenge, pure and simple -- to inflict pain and suffering on the conqueror as payback for the pain and suffering of the conquered.
The most important political purpose, however, is fear -- to engender fear in the ranks of the conqueror and its citizens in an effort to weaken resolve for the conflict, or to undermine political support for it.
London was bombed primarily for the third purpose -- to engender public fear and to weaken political support for the Blair government's continuing involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and, of course, its support for Israel in Palestine).
The results of such tactics are never certain. The bombings in Madrid led to Spain's withdrawal from Iraq, but the bombings in Bali, targeting Australians, stiffened the Australian government's resolve to stay the course. It's too early to assess the political impacts of the London bombings, though Britain's long experience with IRA bombings and early public reactions suggest that the attack will not lead to Blair's abandonment of his support for the Iraq policy of George W. Bush.
Indeed, since Britons have already voiced majority opposition to the Iraq war, the bombings may have the opposite effect and undermine the British anti-war movement.
Official responses to the London bombings have been shallow and manipulative, while the press reaction has been hysterical. Clearly the bombings happened because of Britain's involvement in Iraq, not -- as both Blair and Bush claim in their analogies to Nazi Germany's bombing of civilian targets during World War II -- out of some wish to attack democracy and our western way of life. This is nonsense. Osama bin Laden and his forces are not about to launch an invasion of the British Isles, followed by a ruthless and bloody occupation and the imposition of a radical Islamic theocracy.
Bin Laden has always been clear about his objectives -- to force the U.S. and its allies out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq, and out of the Middle East. The unwillingness of Britain and the U.S. (and Canada as well, given its junior junior role in Afghanistan) to do so has more to do with western geopolitical power games and oil than with our way of life and democracy.
The response of our Minister of Public Security, Anne McLellan, should worry Canadians since she denies any connection to Iraq (or Afghanistan) and babbles on about "transcendent global issues that go well beyond any specific action in Iraq."
If, in McLellan's mind, these "transcendent global issues" concerned power politics and energy supplies, perhaps the minister would be on to something. But alas, this is not the case, for she too seems to feel that terrorism is some sort of global miasma drifting around the world, striking here and there against our way of life and democracy.
The minister should wake up to reality if she really intends to protect the security of Canadians. Canada is on Osama bin Laden's list -- he has said so himself -- over our involvement in Afghanistan. Why are we there? To save our way of life and democracy? No, we are there because our government caved to pressure from Bush and our own business lobby -- which thinks that standing firm on international law and peaceful political settlements, rather than joining Bush's illegal wars of occupation, would hurt our economic relationship with the Americans.
If McLellan really wants to protect us from acts of terrorism, Canada should bring our troops home and condemn the illegal war of occupation against Iraq.
Modern terrorism, like all wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, has embraced the concept of "total war" -- that is, war that makes little distinction between military and civilian targets or personnel. The numbers of civilians killed or injured in recent wars far outstrip military casualties.
Hitler used total war, and the Allies responded with Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. used total war in its undeclared adventures in Indochina, and again in its punishment of Iraq during the First Gulf War -- the annihilation of thousands of unarmed Iraqi troops fleeing homeward, the bombardment of Baghdad, years of trade sanctions leading to thousands of civilian deaths, and repeated bombing sorties. Israel uses total war whenever reprisals are taken against the civilian Palestinian population for terrorist attacks in Israel. The most recent war in Iraq, according to the Red Cross, has resulted in an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths, far exceeding military losses.
Gone are the old gentlemanly and glorious wars of old. And gone are the old romantic terrorists who targeted their victims carefully -- American snipers in the War of Independence who ambushed British troops as they marched in formation, helping to achieve the victory of 1776; Likud's terrorist attacks on British military and administrative personnel, which helped create the state of Israel; the early IRA campaign of assassination against military, political and administrative leaders, which helped create the Irish Free State; and terrorist attacks on U.S. Marines in Beirut, which led to an American withdrawal.
In recent years, as obvious military and political targets have been hardened, terrorists have begun to attack softer civilian targets. And as the targets get softer and softer, the odds of terrorist successes, especially in open societies, increase. Which brings us back to the obvious conclusion -- only political solutions to these underlying conflicts will bring us security.
The London bombings are, in one way, a breakthrough for Osama bin Laden. The bombers were not foreigners, but British born and bred -- apparently moderate and well-educated Muslims. So we may now be confronting a new form of terrorism -- local copy-cat terrorists, acting on their own and without central direction to support al-Qaida and suicide bombings of civilian targets elsewhere.
Such individuals are far below the radar screens of the increasingly elaborate anti-terrorist security system, and virtually impossible to detect until the deed is done.
J.F. Conway is a University of Regina political sociologist.