Fighting Fire with Fire
Today, our response to the fear of terrorism takes place within the scope of approval for state sponsored assassinations, a much freer hand in launching counter-terrorism activities in sovereign nations, and a willingness to sacrifice certain personal liberties in the name of collective safety. But as each of these freedoms is sacrificed it must pass a basic test - unfortunately a test that will probably not be required of it.
Fighting Fire with Fire
Post 9/11 most Americans have found themselves, if they are honest, troubled by our responses to these terrible events. Immediately after that fateful day, little was contested, few questions were asked and changes were acknowledged and accepted as necessary if we were to live in safety. Fear, while the most common motivator of real personal change, rarely results in the type of countenanced, balanced and well-thought out responses that are necessary for meaningful change. Fear as an emotion will almost always guarantee action, but will rarely be the spark of introspection that will enact the most meaningful and necessary of changes.
As we march towards our elections in November, the reality is that few Americans see another option in dealing with terrorism than what has been proposed by the Bush Administration. While many, like myself, view dimly the actions and philosophies of President Bush, it is no less troubling to see displayed from Senator Kerry a weak vision that seems to struggle with the most basic question of “what would you have done differently?” Absent real reflection and other tangible and concrete suggestions, Americans - like any other nation - will resort to increasingly desperate acts in an effort to stay safe.
It is within this ideological vacuum that America, and the world, are most vulnerable. If we can look to history as our guide, it is reasonable to suggest that as other acts of terrorism occur, most average people will ask that their government fight fire with fire. This request, which will in many cases take the shape of explicit demands put on our elected officials, will grow into something much more insidious in the mid-term. The root of our fear, as Americans, is the terrorism inspired by Islamic fundamentalism. This brand of extremism is rooted in a mind, a way of looking at reality, that has little in common with most people. It is a combination of fatalism, hatred, and spiritual certainty that no shared heritage with rationalism and pragmatism.
Today, our response to the fear of terrorism takes place within the scope of approval for state sponsored assassinations, a much freer hand in launching counter-terrorism activities in sovereign nations, and a willingness to sacrifice certain personal liberties in the name of collective safety. But as each of these freedoms is sacrificed it must pass a basic test - unfortunately a test that will probably not be required of it: each of these sacrifices must address whether or not they have made our world safer. If not, it seems reasonable that the loss of personal liberty or the doctrine of war (the doctrine of pre-emption applies here) will be rescinded in interests of another more valid pursuit. But where fear has been the motivator of the original changes, rationalism has been abdicated. Where fear is at the root of a willingness to sacrifice, it is unlikely that reason will be brought to bear to test and validate the direction of a country, a government or a political institution.
We will then find ourselves in a bind: our increasingly aggressive foreign policy will be walking hand-in-hand with an on-going loss of our personal liberty. As these two advance together, we will be no more safe. In fact, our aggressive foreign policy will be making more and new enemies for us while at the same time our loss of personal liberties will be creating a level of paranoia that today’s modern media is positioned to exaggerate to our collective disadvantage.
When we realize that our position has left us no safer, we will turn to the logic of a child that has the pathology of desperation as its mother: we will let loose our own fundamentalists in an effort to battle their fundamentalists. While our fundamentalists will agree with us that these “others” must be exterminated, our home-grown fundamentalists will mandate certain changes, a return to certain values they believe in, for them to take to the field of battle in arms. It will be as important for our own fundamentalists to return the country to their values as it will be for them to fight the battle being waged by the opposition.
To most Americans, such a statement seems silly. The idea of fundamentalist extremists brings to mind disparaging ethnic stereotypes we most comfortably think of for Middle Easterners. Our own fundamentalists will look like us, they will live like us, and they will participate in most of our society just like us; this lesson as to what fundamentalists look like within their own culture should be thought upon by more Americans when they bad mouth those in Islamic societies that tolerate extremism. It is this commonality, this approachability of our home-grown fundamentalists, that will make their suggestion that they take over more control, that their ideas have more to offer, much more dangerous and insidious. It is not that they will have to aggressively advance their own agenda, it is that as we aggressively resort to foreign policy activities that marginalize our morality internationally, we will have few, if any, other options. Most of us will willingly accept their ideas because nothing we have done in the past has worked. Here again, our unwillingness to make meaningful changes in our foreign policy will leave us two choices: rescinding our heavy-handed unilateralism, or more assertively protecting ourselves through the policies of engagement our own fundamentalists will propose.
This reasoning is not as complex as it may appear; were we to have a greater appreciation for how extremism is nurtured in certain countries it would be easier for us to understand why our own extremists will come to power at some point in the future. When America acts unilaterally, as in Iraq, we do not appreciate how many moderate Middle Eastern people view our intentions with both fear and loathing. Where we once stood behind Hussein as an ally in the Cold War and as leverage against the Ayatollah in Iran, we now decry him as an enemy. What we do not appreciate is that to moderate Arabs, such a switch puts them at risk as to who will be next. Not only the obvious question of who we will engage militarily next, but who will we choose to view dimly next? If them, they run the risk of economic consequences the likes of which few Americans can picture. Arabs rightfully see the vagaries of American power through the lens of disillusionment, not the hope of freedom. It is within this disillusionment that our actions take the moderates and force them into unwitting alliances with extremists. In this moment, the extremists and the moderates are saying the same thing. They are both pointing at the heavy-handed Americans, both arguing that America acts unilaterally, only when, why and how it benefits Americans - not when, why and how it is morally right to do so. This hypocrisy cuts American credibility to shreds, but much more importantly it empowers extremism.
Within America, these pathologies will be very similar to that which our own culture is going through. Just as with the embattled moderate Arab populations, the moderate American populations will be motivated by fear. Fear is never a trustworthy gauge of action. In moments of fear, both Arabs and Americans will make deals with very-real devils in the interests of protecting that which they hold dear. How sad that if we could but freeze frame such a moment of realization in time, we would see that both cultures and both peoples fear for the same things and hold the very same things as precious to them.
May we seek out leaders who will stand up and hold us accountable to real introspection, leading to real insight so that we may remove the role fear is playing in our decision making and in our politics. To not do so is to invite the encroachment of our own brand of fundamentalism into what makes America unique in the interests of dealing with a world we no longer understand. I do not wish to see my country over-reach in the interests of self-preservation, only to conduct itself in a manner we will later regret.
previous post: Be a Part of Something Bigger Than Yourself
next post: My Struggle with God
Leave a Reply
About MysteriousFaith
“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”
Themes
Now Reading
Search
Favorites
Personal Writing
Theology
Categories
Meta Data