Fighting terrorism: A different sort of political ball game [Archives:2003/673/Opinion]

The standard rule for facing up to any problem is that various alternative solutions are considered and weighed carefully as to the respective inputs required, the outcomes expected, estimated costs, with a clear perception of the direct and indirect consequences of each solution on all concerned. Of course, this assessment would only be complete after a full and thorough understanding of the problem being confronted has been arrived at. This understanding would include, but not be limited to: the background of the problem (its roots and the stages of development; the prevalence of the problem (geographical or territorial expanse; the size of the population affected, the different parties/people affected; the long and short-term effects and the underlying causes and the principals concerned (whether as “vectors” or holders of jurisdictional responsibility for handling the problem)
For sure, terrorism is not a newly developed phenomenon in human behavior, which spontaneously came to surface on the tragic day of September 11, 2003. And for sure, terrorism is not a monopoly attributed to any particular ethnic constituency or religious affiliation. In fact terrorism is as old as time and takes on several manifestations and crosses all political and socio-economic inclinations. These would range from terrorist acts undertaken by individuals, who hold a grudge against the society, prompted by their inability to cope with socio-economic pressures, or who may be beset by mental or psychological “abnormalities” to the terrorist acts that are motivated by political or chauvinistic inclinations, not to mention the broad aspect of ethnic or racial terrorism. Moreover terrorism, in its institutional manifestations (included state promoted “legitimized” terrorism), would entail that a visible and covert infrastructure would have been developed with a well defined organizational framework, involving many people, many of whom would be not directly involved in the physical operation of the terrorist acts, but are of course necessary for the continuity of the intentional menace and the “sustainability of the cause”.
In evaluating the performance of the Bush Administration's declared “War on Terrorism”, one is bound to conclude that this war has been one of the poorest managed wars in the history of modern warfare. When assessed in terms of the general rule of confronting problems, we find that the Bush Administration simply took the problem as a mere tool of convenience to proceed onwards with a previously drawn agenda that falls prey to the long range aspirations of political demagogues of chauvinistic persuasions. Moreover, this war has been waged with an obvious desire to ensure political continuity through adhesion to the principle of “we guarantee your interests” if you continue to back us politically and financially. Thus, one can assume that the overall motivations for entering this “war on terror” goes far beyond merely overcoming an obviously serious but on the whole social problem, of international dimensions. Dealing with the problem of terrorism, in view of its current international dimensions, would necessitate that the whole world needs to be involved, under a strategy developed by consensus and consultation, without any weight to the narrow interests that might or might not benefit from the campaign in order to properly contain, if not eliminate such a long engrained phenomenon in human behavior. However the Bush Administration insisted all along that this war is “their baby” and anyone who does not go along with the way it should be dealt with, the Bush way, is simply “with the terrorists”.
Power is great and wonderful, but a problem is surely eminent when power is afflicted with arrogance and self-aggrandizement, in which most of those in the neo-con establishment holding the helms in Washington have proven to display a great knack for over indulgence. The obvious end result is a distortion of realities, a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, not only to the American constituencies they are accountable to, but to the international community, often through the use of unorthodox and murky techniques to convey the “facts”, or through the creation of illogical scenarios that reflect a profound disdain for human intellect, not to mention the enormous play on emotions and sympathies.
In the end, history will judge the Bush Administration and the neo-con team as a leadership that is prone to cataclysmic, if not catastrophic adventures, often relying on intentionally evasive standards of the need for transparency, and self-assessment, rightfully expected of democratic leaderships. These are standard Third World traits, which are the essential foundations for all the social and economic maladies, which most Third World countries suffer from, and their effects on the majority of the population of this world are clearly visible on the faces of most of the people of third world countries and the development indicators in these countries. This gives rise to the perplexing question, has the American ruling establishment sought to have the American people become carriers of those same downtrodden faces? The War on Terror has unraveled a serious breakdown of ethical governance in the Executive Branch in the United States, with the back up system of checks and balances falling far behind in putting the essential elements of oversight and accountability into play to ensure proper oversight on the use of the elements of power in a well established democracy.
——
[archive-e:673-v:13-y:2003-d:2003-10-02-p:opinion]