|
According to the texts I have read regarding terrorism, terrorists are not from the poverty classes. They are actually coming from what is equivalent to our middle class. Just like our middle class is sliding into the working poor, their middle classes are experiencing the same thing.
The interesting thing is that, while we have an ideology that rewards and respects the upper class, looks down on individuals who don't "make it," and perpetuates global capitalism, the middle class in the Middle East doesn't share such beliefs. They view global capitalism as one of the main sources of their nations' problems--not our "lifestyle" in terms of freedom or technology.
These are military actions--not religious ones. Often times these military actions can be draped in relgious ideology, because that is a powerful tools for the masses. But that doesn't mean it's rooted in relgious ideology. If one begins to look at these actions through this paradigm, recent events begin to make sense.
That is, the actions of 9-11 weren't random targeting of innocent civilians. An economic power structue was intentionally targetted by a military group. A military group that has no centralized nation, and consequently, isn't recognized as an army by Western nation-states (I don't know the stance of Eastern nation-states). But it is a military group nonetheless--and it is acting rationally--not sociopathically. For five decades international monetary organizations, guided by Western powers, have carved up and subjugated previously powerful nations. They handed power over to elites aligned with their interests and gave them military and economic support--mainly in exchange for access to oil. With global communication and transportation, grassroots organizations have swelled up and organized themselves.
This global organization of individuals should be viewed as a natural response to international corporations, neo-colonialism (characterized by economic force rather than military), and global trade pacts among nation-states. I'm not saying I support terrorists killing my fellow citizens and anyone who takes this in that way really ought to think about respecting their fellow countrypersons more, but I am saying that this is something that was natural, predicted, and essentially unheeded by the public. I don't doubt our administration is up to par on this--they just think they can stop it differently than academics who share my view. Academics who share their view think we can with this with military and economic might. We think, however, that our country doesn't have the resources to pull us through such a long battle. Besides, the toll is too great, to our view. We think there are other ways to stop this aggression that I won't go into during this post. But appeasement is very different from working a truce or agreement. It's also never been tried before--so no one sitting here reading this now can say that "appeasement doesn't work." You can type it, actually, but it isn't particularly relevent or accurate.
I will say this, however, the Western powers stomped on a lot of people to get where they are today. It wasn't through intelligence or innovation--but military force. It remains to be seen whether we've reached our peak yet. If we have, though, and we are beginning our decline, we have to meet all thoe people we subjected on the way back down. Whatever you take from my post, at least understand this: no matter what tactic we take, the coming events are going to exact a very heavy toll on us both in terms of casualties sustained and the freedoms we have historically held paramount to other considerations.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|