|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
          |
War on terrorism hypocriticalby Lane Tracy The "war on terrorism" presents me with a problem. I am opposed to both war and terrorism. War and terrorism both involve the use of weapons, sometimes weapons of mass destruction, to kill people who are identified as the enemy. So what is the difference between war and terrorism? Why are we expected to support one and condemn the other? The distinction between war and terrorism seems to hinge on whether the targets are "military" or "civilian." But this distinction routinely breaks down. For instance, news sources identify Palestinians as terrorists even when they attack military targets, while the Israeli army is said to be engaged in military action even when it demolishes houses and kills civilians. Land mines annually kill many more civilians than soldiers. Is the United States supporting terrorism when it refuses to sign the treaty against use of land mines? No — it cannot be a matter of who gets killed. Perhaps the distinction between war and terrorism is a matter of intent to kill military or civilian personnel. Armies intend to kill military personnel, whereas terrorists intend to kill civilians. But if that is the case, one would expect armies would be limited to the use of weapons that carefully can be aimed. Yet the weapons used by modern armies — bombs, missiles, mines, artillery — often cannot avoid creating civilian casualties. Even "smart bombs" and computer-guided missiles do dumb things sometimes, and the people who use them know this. Our military leaders deliberately choose these weapons of mass destruction over the alternative of sending in troops, knowing they are choosing civilian casualties to protect the lives of our soldiers. Isn't that terrorism? Wasn't the United States engaged in terrorism in Afghanistan? Did we not conduct terrorism in World War II at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden? Perhaps not. Perhaps the distinction is really one of dress. War is practiced by people in uniform, whereas terrorists conduct their operations in mufti. Civilians become terrorists when they start shooting at others while out of uniform. That might explain the claims of the Israeli army that they have killed few civilians. But the National Rifle Association and all those who argue for the unrestricted constitutional right to bear arms ought to be up in arms about this interpretation. They should be championing the cause of the terrorists, who are nothing more than patriotic militiamen trying to defend their freedom against a uniformed foe. Perhaps calling it war or terrorism depends on whether the perpetrators are killing people for the purpose of making them dead or to frighten others who are not yet dead. If so, then I must ask why it is worse — more "evil," if you will — to terrorize people than to kill them. I always thought murder was the worst you could do. The preference for war over terrorism is a wonderful example of the Golden Rule of Politics: He who has the gold makes the rules. If you have armies in shining uniforms, nuclear weapons, bombers and bombs, carriers and battleships, then you get to define the right way to fight a war. If you have nothing but outmoded rifles and a few sticks of dynamite, you get to play the bad guys.
Here is the point. There is no right way to fight a war. War is wrong, terrorism is wrong, oppression is wrong. Until we learn these simple lessons, we have not proven ourselves worthy to own a planet.
|