| OPINION
| October 13, 2004
Guest Column
Fundamental Tactics
‘Fighting fire with fire
will only leave charred remains’
 |
| The Shorthorn: Daniel Worthington |
|
I read Carl Morgan’s guest column,
“Know Thine Enemy,” and since I found myself in disagreement
with his views, I decided to articulate my thoughts on the matter.
He proposes that terrorism is too broad a term to cover what the
United States is currently fighting against and stated that the
true threat is militant Islam. Over the course of his article, he
makes a distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a distorted
political ideology and opines that the latter must be eradicated
at all costs, since it is contrary to the United States’ interests.
So far, so good. However, his solution to this particularly thorny
problem is more than slightly unrealistic. No doubt with the old
“Safety at Home First” adage stuck firmly in his mind,
he decides all foreigners from states that are labeled as “terrorist-sponsoring”
should not be allowed to enter the country. In other words, after
speaking of terms that are too “broad” in the beginning
of his article, he immediately grabs a brush and blackens a significant
portion of the globe.
Even if this part of his solution were reasonable, there is still
worse to come. For after securing the lives of his fellow Americans
at home, he now goes off into the enemy’s territory. In a
stern statement, he says that “we will attack any country
that shelters terrorists, and deal forcefully with any enemy.”
He condemns the “despotic Islamic rulers” who infringe
upon the United States’ interests, and tells us, finally,
that dealing with them in this manner is the only way to prevail.
There are a few things that should be noted here: First, anyone
who talks about separating Islam from its political roots with a
straight face betrays his or her own ignorance on the subject. The
simple fact of the matter is that the religion (for better or worse)
was conceived as an ideology that applies as much to one’s
personal world as it does to the political. There is no equivalent
of the Biblical “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, to
God what is God’s” maxim in Islam, which makes it especially
difficult for a separation of church and state. It naturally follows
that if militant Islam is used as the pretext for labeling a country
as “terrorist-sponsoring”, any country that is predominantly
Muslim will be thus labeled, because there is no nation in this
world where extremists can’t be found.
Secondly, (and this may come as a shock to a great many people),
you’d be amazed at the number of situations that don’t
improve after heavy bombing. I am not sure what engenders this belief
in so many people, (especially given the debacle of the current
war), but I think that it is due to a real lack of desire to understand
the true ramifications of the situation one is in. Of course, it
does not help that the complexities that envelop Middle-Eastern
politics are so labyrinthine that they are nothing short of intimidating
to the layman. Indeed, this simplicity of opinion pervades the highest
levels of foreign policy as well, for much the same reason. A good
example would be the State Department’s almost asinine reaction
to Shiite-Sunni demographics in Iraq.
Lastly, it saddens me to see so many people falling into the mantra
of “national interest”, especially given situations
that can get as ugly as this. If the whole war on Iraq, for example,
is seen by some as naturally justified in light of material interests
(such as, say, oil), then it truly does not matter for what reasons
you choose to go to war against another country. Not only does it
replace the ideals that the United States was founded upon with
a new, Machiavellian amorality, it is also an extremely good way
of making more enemies.
A true solution requires much more thought, effort and patience
than anyone has exhibited thus far. It calls for the elimination
of what breeds discontent and fundamentalism, namely poverty and
instability. It does call for “work[ing] with moderate Muslims”,
preferably before you bomb their homes. It entails working with
the rest of the world community, instead of deliberately going it
alone just because it seems like a good idea at the time. Yes, there
is sometimes a definite need for strong-arm tactics, but approaching
the entire problem from that end is not only as effective as a glass
hammer, it is also guaranteed to create a whole new set of problems,
each more complicated than the last. People like to speak of fighting
fire with fire, but in reality, flame only feeds flame, and all
it leaves as a memory is the charred remains of what it raged upon.
Simply put, one cannot fight fundamentalism with another form of
fundamentalism; the success that is achieved in this manner, while
quick, goes only so far.
— Hassan A. Kingravi is a computer science senior
|
|
