Little room for just war, when diplomacy and police work trump bombing

photo by soundfromwayout

Several  months ago, I posted about the Bush administration’s attempt to strong arm a permanent stay in Iraq, despite Americans and, more importantly, the Iraqis not wanting such a deal to be made.  Lots of debate ensued about the Iraq war.

Conservative blogger Chris Ford asked:

. . . So your overall argument for war, if I am reading right here, is that we should not attack a country unless we are attacked? Basically the whole reactive vs. proactive right? . . . At what point, in your view, would you say the american deathtoll have to be in order for us to attack a country/dictator? This isn’t a loaded question. I’m even interested to see if you think that we should do nothing at all in the course of an attack on us.

Violence begets violence. Even after being attacked, diplomacy trumps bombing.  It’s not as though Al Qa’ida has a website with the location of its international headquarters posted under its contact information.  Even if you set out to kill terrorists, taking out civilians is unacceptable collateral. Not only are you unlikely to strike the core of a terrorist organization with bombs, you are apt to assist the terrorists in driving new recruits to their side.  Terrorists take their disapproval of American foreign policy to extremes; for the average individual, disapproval would not be expressed with violence, but take out a hospital or school yard or wedding party, and the goodwill evaporates.

In Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky discusses philospher Jean Bethke Elshtain’s 4 criteria for a just war.

First, force is justified if it ‘protects the innocent from certain harm’; her sole example is when a country has ‘certain knowledge that genocide will commence on a certain date’ and the victims have no means of self-defense.  Second, the war ‘must be openly declared or otherwise authorized by a legitimate authority.’ Third, it “must begin with the right intentions.” Fourth, it must be a last resort after other possibilities for the redress and defense of the values at stake have been explored.’ (p 203)

Few of the US’s counterterrorist acts meet these standards — our foreign policy keeps repressive regimes in power, until they no longer suit us, and then we replace that leadership.  In fact, Chomsky points out that, in the 1980s,  the US Army “defined terrorism as ‘the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. . .through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.’” (p. 188).  That definition got retired and was never replaced. Fitting, as we respond to terrorism with acts of terrorism.

We were alone in our desire to start a war after 9/11.  A late September 2001 Gallup Poll asked “In your opinion, once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorist are based or should the American government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?” (p.199)  Of 36 foreign countries surveyed, India and Israel were the only two nations to support a military attack, the other 34 weighed heavily in favor of court proceedings.   Here are a few examples.

Country / Percent Favoring  Judicial Response /  Military Response
France    67    29
Germany    77    17
Israel    19    77
Italy    71    21
Peru    89    8
Spain    86    12
Switzerland    87    8
United Kingdom    75    18
United States    30    54
Mexico    94    2
Ukraine    84    8
Venezuela    86    11

(Random aside, though we came to dub France a nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys, it was the Western European nation most supportive of military action.  Merci mille fois!)

The US is out of touch with a realization accepted by the rest of the world.  Violent retribution isn’t easy to tightly control, so diplomacy and solid police work should take the lead.  RAND, a well-respected social issues think tank released their latest report on terrorism: How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida (Full Report / Summary Only). Their researchers examined 648 terrorist groups active between 1968 to 2006 and found:

All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. . . The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa’ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa’ida.

Military solutions dismantled terrorist agendas just 7% of the time.  In the case of Al Qa’ida, the group stepped up its terrorist attacks AFTER 9/11 suggesting that military action further energized the hydra-esque group.

So when Chris asks how many Americans have to die before we can strike back with impunity . . . There is no magic number.  In response to any attack, I’d want to know the serious and vigorous attempts to use law enforcement, court proceedings, and negotiation had failed.  Tit for tat is just going to lead to World War III.

And for a portion of our population, WWIII is the desired outcome.  The problem with turning to police work and open discussion is that it cuts of the profits flowing to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, who rake in huge government contracts with little accountability for getting results or providing quality goods and services.  Blowing up countries yields more profit to corporations with the opportunity to destroy and then reconstruct societal infrastructure than tense negotiations that yield limited violent outbursts.

For more on retribution and American foreign policy, check out Chapters 8 (Terrorism and Justice: Some Useful Truisms) and 9 (A Passing Nightmare?) of Noam Chomsky’s  Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.

Update 8/10: NYTimes Columnist Nicholas Kristoff covers the RAND study today in his column, “Make Diplomacy, Not War.”

No related posts.