“We will defeat the terrorists.” So the President repeatedly
promised while being echoed by “Americans for Victory over Terrorism,” an
advocacy group headquartered at California’s Claremont Institute
and led by Bill Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education. Who would
not want to see a quick end to terrorist crimes, specifically the killing
and maiming of non-combatants?
Victory over terrorism is certain to come, according to the President and his
advisers, if the U.S. and its allies pursue a tough and uncompromising course
and insure American control of the Muslim Middle East for the foreseeable future.
Nobody seems to know, however, how reliance on superior military power alone
could protect us from acts of terror any time and everywhere.
The Bush administration summarily denounces as terrorists all organized resistance
groups in the Palestinian territories, in Lebanon, in Iraq, and against native
dictatorial governments, regardless of whether their members commit acts of terror
or simply fight unbearable conditions. Yet, the President refuses to admit that
the killing of non-combatants by Israeli or American action also constitutes
terror.
The advocates of the hard line in the Middle East reject as signs of weakness
any concessions to Arab demands and therefore oppose ending the occupation of
the Palestinian territories or the occupation of Iraq, or a gradual reduction
of U.S. military bases in the region. Quite to the contrary, the hardliners want
to consolidate America’s control over the Middle East by invading Syria
and Iran and toppling their governments.
None of the hardliners take the seething Muslim anger and hostility about U.S.
policies in the Middle East serious, even though the indignation has steadily
grown worse. Reuters quotes a Lebanese reporter: “Since September 11, I
have worked on massive public opinion polls in the Muslim and Arab world. You
can see the animosity between September 11 and now. It’s growing and it
is worrying.”
Elections in Arab countries, which the President welcomes as democratic manifestations,
showed the increasing opposition to his policies. The Muslim Brotherhood gained
popular support in Egypt, and Hamas, the radical resistance against the Israeli
occupation, won majority control of the Palestinian legislature.
Since President Bush apparently views “evil” Muslim extremism as
the core of the West’s confrontation with Islam, he and his advisers ignore
the Muslim world’s political grievances. Political Islam clearly wants
to see an end to Western colonialism. Ironically, while President Bush insists
that Israel has a right to defend itself, bin Laden claims that people under
foreign occupation also have the right to fight for their independence. Fred
Halliday of the London School of Economics estimates that for bin Laden, Hamas,
and Hezbollah, “80 percent of the rhetoric is secular nationalism reconfigured.”
What then is the U.S. government doing to defuse the political hostility in the
Muslim world? Why are we not talking with the Syrians and the Iranians, with
Hamas and Hezbollah, particularly if they want to meet with us? Even if Iran’s
president may at times make irresponsible statements, what do America’s
diplomats have to lose if they air our disagreements with him face to face?
The President predicts the eradication of all terrorists that may still be conspiring
against us in numerous hide-outs around the globe. Yet, he has so far offered
only one strategy: staying the course with homeland defense and with offensive
military action overseas.
He has yet to explain why the world’s only superpower needs to sacrifice
manpower and money when it can end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, guarantee
Israel’s safety, and take our armed forces out of places where Americans
don’t belong. When will we learn that to forestall the crimes that terrorists
commit, we need to redress the injustices inciting them?