-Caveat Lector-
>From polyconomics.com
{{<Begin>}}
Memo on the Margin
December 17, 1999
Fall Semester: Supply-Side University Economics Lesson #12
Memo To: Supply-Side Students
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Political Terrorism
With Y2K just around the corner, the government has warned that political
terrorists may have designed acts of destruction in various parts of the world
which will be made to look as if they were caused by the Y2K computer bug. This
does not make sense to me. Yes, there already are computer hackers who have
designed four known programs containing viruses that are keyed to destroy files
at the stroke of midnight. These are simply evil people who enjoy destruction
for its own sake. They have nothing to do with politics. Political terrorism
also is different from plain old criminal terrorism, which promises relief from
terror in exchange for money -- kidnaping, for example. Political terrorism is
a criminal political act, designed to strike a political blow that the
perpetrator does not believe can be made in legitimate venues.
Any political acts of destruction that occur at Y2K will not be made to appear
as if they were acts of God or computer. The perpetrator almost always will
want it to be known that he or she struck for a political purpose. It would not
be surprising, though, for there to be acts of political terrorism at the
calendar rollover, maybe several at once in different parts of the world. The
significance of the date may have inspired work to begin on some complicated
scheme even a year or two ago. They would not then be seen as random acts, but
as acts of revenge directed at some political power. I�ve been of the view that
our government -- Democratic administration and Republican Congress -- has put
us all in jeopardy with a foreign policy that generates the kind of frustration
abroad, especially in Islamic countries, which results in the kind of political
terrorism that was directed at the World Trade Center. It is appropriate to
devote today�s lesson to this topic, following Pat Buchanan�s speech Thursday
to the Center for Political and Strategic Studies. In it, he called for a
lifting of all economic embargoes which the United States now places on 61
different countries of the world -- including the embargoes on Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, the Sudan and North Korea. It is my belief that this kind of
"Moral Foreign Policy" is the only kind that extinguishes the outrage that is
at the heart of political terror.
Edward Peck, who was our envoy to Baghdad in the Carter administration, was the
deputy director of the Reagan administration�s task force on terrorism, which
spent seven months coming up with 51 ideas on how to combat political
terrorism. At the time, Vice President George Bush, who chaired the task force -
- which included Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State
George Shultz -- advised the staff that it need not worry about the causes of
terrorism, but to concentrate on the defenses against it. It was, says Peck,
the general assumption that political terrorism was the province of the
Arab/Islamic world in that period and had at its base the Palestinian problem.
Peck recalls a discussion about how to tell the difference between a terrorist
and a freedom fighter, which suggested that a terrorist is someone who is
financed by them and freedom fighters are financed by us. He remembers George
Shultz rejecting the inference, in the sense that there is no "moral
equivalence" between them and us. If we are better than they are, our
terrorists cannot be considered criminal, no matter how illegal the activities,
no matter how many innocents are killed. Up to a point -- a point of
diminishing returns -- Shultz is correct. In a family unit, parents are
expected to dictate proper behavior to children who misbehave. In the family of
nations, rank also has these privileges. But just as parents discover their
children will rebel against dictates that are based simply on rank or raw
power, even superpowers find the costs of getting their way by the sheer
exercise of power can get out of hand.
The seven-month exercise was essentially a waste of time, says Peck, because
the unwritten conclusion was that there is no defense against political
terrorism, especially in a democracy. In a police state, where you can search
anything, anytime, anyplace, you can put up a defense. But if a terrorist is
not concerned with escape, there is no way to prevent him from committing the
act he has in mind. With all its security, Israel remains vulnerable at all
times to acts of political terror, as does the United States, yet there is
almost no discussion about the causes of political terror. He recalls one
anecdote of an academic expert on terrorism from Harvard, who was invited to
present his findings to the task force. The professor made the point that in
the Islamic faith, the Shi�ite fundamentalists teach that if one dies as a
defender of the faith, he is instantly transported to Paradise. Such believers
make perfect terrorists because they are willing to give up their lives. And
how, asked Peck, does one defend against such believers? The professor answered
that the Shi�ite fundamentalists must be persuaded to stop this manner of
teaching. Oh, said Peck, then this is a long-term project you are recommending.
Yes, said the professor, it has to be long term.
The chief cause of political terror is a breakdown in communication between
those in authority and those seeking justice or at least the adjudication of a
grievance. Here I return to the idea that the family unit is the basic building
block of the nation state and we can learn something of terrorism by thinking
of the injustices that occur within a family that lead to irrational behavior
by one of its members. If the head of the family casts out a child and offers
no avenue back to the family�s good graces, or if one child is systematically
treated unfairly or perceives that he is being treated unfairly, we can expect
an explosion of some kind. On the other hand, if a child knows he or she can
approach an angry father through the good offices of mother, or vice versa, the
open avenue dispels the frustration that in time would otherwise gather into
hatred, rage and miscreant behavior. Healthy families have myriad ways to
resolve perceived acts of injustice before they grow into outrage. Remember the
terms injustice and outrage in combination, as they belong together for an
understanding of political terrorism.
Aristotle discusses the concepts at great length in his Politics,
differentiating between voluntary and involuntary acts of injustice. That is,
an authority figure unwittingly may produce an injustice that nevertheless
produces an explosive act of outrage. These are easier to fix with political
mechanisms that nab them early. (I like the aphorism, "Well begun is half
done.") Of all the nations on earth, the United States has had the least
difficulty with acts of political terror because the mechanisms designed by the
founding fathers provide myriad avenues to disperse a sense of injustice.
Voting for elected representatives is not the most important of these, because
corrupt politicians can become the source of injustice. At the time of the
terrorist occupation of the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru, my son Matthew
surprised me by writing an essay on the importance of constitutional democracy.
He argued that Peru simply does not have the private institutions that can
assist in the adjudication of grievances before they come to a boil. These have
evolved here under the protection of our Constitution.
The "Bill of Rights," especially the "First Amendment" -- which guarantees the
right of expression -- enables groups who feel dispossessed the right to
assemble and demonstrate and make their grievances know in the media. As
corrupt as the political system may get, and it is now as bad as it has ever
been -- because of the temptations offered by the intricate tax system and the
bonanza of spending programs -- there is still a federal court system reaching
to the Supreme Court that is as solid and as free of corruption as we can
reasonably expect.
The bombing of the World Trade Center and the bombing of the federal building
in Oklahoma City are the two most serious acts of political terror we have
experienced. Because we had so mesmerized ourselves into thinking only Muslims
would terrorize us, and because of our support for Israel, it immediately was
assumed that the Oklahoma City bombing was an Iranian affair. Instead, it grew
out of the unintended consequences of the ill-considered use of force at Waco
against the Branch Davidians. Oklahoma City was political terrorism on a
different scale, intended by Timothy McVeigh to vent his outrage against a
federal establishment that he perceived as being corrupt. On a different scale,
the bombings of abortion clinics belong in the category of criminal political
acts. The few deaths in bombing incidents attributed to the militant Jewish
Defense League also should be mentioned. You may recall I posted a "memo on the
margin" to Chairman Jesse Helms of the Senate Foreign Relations recently, which
quoted at length from the terrorist convicted of blowing up the World Trade
Center. Please read it carefully as part of this lesson, even if you read it
when it appeared. It makes Ed Peck�s point that if a terrorist does not care if
he escapes or not, he can blow up just about anything.
The purpose of my writing to Helms was to urge him to hold hearings on the
Islamic world. If our government simply would announce a willingness to hear
the petitions of Muslims, to hear out their grievances, the incidence of
terrorism and the threat of terrorism would drop sharply here and around the
world. That is, the people of Israel would be less likely to lose their lives
and limbs if the Arab/Islamic world could have its list of grievances simply
heard by Uncle Sam. Helms did send me a note saying I�d given him a lot to mull
over. There has been no sign of hearings and I don�t expect any. This is
because I believe the Jewish Political Establishment in the United States --
not necessarily in Israel -- is determined to close off serious political
discourse with the Islamic world in the mistaken belief that in so doing it is
protecting Israel. It is the worst possible thing to do, practically inviting
terrorism, but it grows out of a deeply-held conviction by those Americans --
Jew and Gentile -- who decide such matters that the Arab world is THE ENEMY of
Israel and that maximum force and minimum diplomacy is the correct posture.
History will credit Richard Nixon�s presidency for opening the door to
Communist China. By opening communication, the paranoia that existed on both
sides of the Bamboo Curtain gradually dissolved. China was permitted to re-
enter the family of nations without having to submit to humiliation and
national disgrace. Capitalism now flourishes in China and representative
democracy has begun to taken root at the local and regional levels of
government. Still, Mao Tse-tung�s portrait hangs in the most prominent place in
Tiananmen Square. Nixon, though, always had his "enemies� list," which was at
bottom the source of his own disgrace. The President of the United States can
not list his "enemies" without offering a reasonable venue by which they can be
removed from the list, or they will have no choice but to make his life even
more miserable.
Our foreign policy toward Iraq and Iran today is part of that Nixonian legacy,
just as our policy toward China reflects the thinking of those Nixonians who
remain influential in our foreign policy establishment. Here is Nixon writing
in September 1991, several months after the conclusion of the Gulf War. This is
on page 215 of his book, Seize the Moment: America�s Challenge in a One
Superpower World:
In the Gulf War, the U.S.-led coalition scored a knockdown but not a knockout.
We won round one, but Saddam Hussein�s strategy is to go the distance. Because
he knows he cannot fight us toe-to-toe, Saddam will try to win on points by
staying in power, recovering gradually, retaining his weapons of mass
destruction, and waiting for the United States to lose patience and throw in
the towel. While we should allow Iraq to purchase some humanitarian supplies,
we must keep the sanctions in place as long as he remains in power. We should
insist that Iraq comply with the U.N. resolutions calling for the destruction
of its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons facilities. If Saddam Hussein
persists in playing cat and mouse with U.N. officials, we should bomb sites
suspected of containing weapons and material related to producing weapons of
mass destruction.
We should view with skepticism Iran�s expressed interest in closer ties to the
West. While a moderate Iran would help stabilize the region, the extreme
fundamentalists clearly want Teheran to reclaim the throne as the dominant
regional power. Those who blame the United States for the poor relations with
Iran miss the mark. Iran has continued to finance international terrorist
networks that target the United States, including those that bombed the U.S.
embassy and the Marine barracks in Lebanon in October 1983 and that downed Pan
Am flight 103 over Scotland in December 1988. Its extreme fundamentalist
regime, which has used its embassies to coordinate anti-Western terrorist
groups, has been linked to more than four hundred terrorist incidents
worldwide. Moreover, Iran played a spoiler role in the Persian Gulf War,
pitting each side against the other until Iraq�s fate had been clearly sealed.
Nixon is gone, but his determination to combat Islamic terrorism with maximum
force and minimum diplomacy lives on. When Nixon left the White House in 1974,
we tend to forget that he left his team behind, the intellectuals who fashioned
foreign policy with him. When he pronounced Islamic fundamentalism the greatest
threat to world peace, it did not matter that he was a private citizen living
in Saddle River, N.J. The idea was the expression of his team, which today
lives on, unable to alter course. The idea of combating aggression with Force
is of course basic to civilization. The idea of combating Islamic terrorism
with Force is a stupid one, for as Edward Peck will tell you, unless you stop
teaching defenders of the faith they will go to heaven if they blow up you and
themselves for Allah, the enemies� list will have millions of names on it.
Actually, most Islamic religious leaders around the world -- including the
Nation of Islam�s Louis Farrakhan here in the U.S. -- consistently have spoken
out against the terrorism. In December 1977, the World Islamic Conference in
Teheran issued a statement signed by all participants decrying terrorist acts.
The news media here almost never report on the statements, and when they do,
they sometimes suggest the religious leaders are just kidding. The NYTimes
report on the Teheran conference suggested the religious leaders only meant
intramural terrorism, among Muslims, not against Israel.
Having been a student, an admirer, and a defender of Nixon in his darkest
hours, I would like to believe that if he were alive today he would have
altered the course he etched out in 1991. In many ways, the policies we now are
following so assiduously were set by this man who is no longer around to check
on them. The officials of our government to this day are not permitted to have
any contact with the government of Iraq. Our UN Ambassador Richard Holbrook is
not permitted to speak to his Iraqi counterpart. His predecessor, Bill
Richardson, was not permitted to speak to his counterpart, Nizar Hamdoon, even
though the two had been friends in an earlier part of the U.S.-Iraq
relationship, when we were supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against the
Iranian fundamentalists.
Why would I shift gears when my old comrades in arms plough ahead on the same
tired line? I think it has to do with my belief that when I peel away history
to the root cause of the problems we have with Iran and Iraq, I find it in
Nixon�s 1971 decision to go off the gold standard. I covered this February 18
and 19 in my thumbnail history "Where Did Saddam Hussein Come From?" Briefly,
it was the social and cultural upheaval in Iran, caused by the great inflation
that followed Nixon�s decision, that ignited Islamic fundamentalism and put a
sword in the hand of the Ayatollah Khomeini. In other words, it was Nixon and
his economic advisors who were responsible for these economic and financial
convulsions, and the security threat they posed when we met their grievances
with force and their terrorist acts with isolation and threats of greater
force. Once again, we find the Law of Unintended Consequences writ large. As
the cartoon character Pogo would say, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
It�s hard to imagine our country being the object of political terrorism, but
it also is often hard for some parents to understand why their children
misbehave to the point of being little terrors. One remedy is the use of force,
as punishment, but there have to be others as well. In a situation involving
war and survival, a war between nations, political terrorism can be and usually
is employed as a weapon of war. The atomic bombing of Japan was an act of
terror, directed at civilian populations, not the military, justified because
it was us versus them. It is now peacetime, although there are little wars
going on all over the world, especially in Africa and Russia. For the United
States to be acting like a bully, dropping bombs and embargoes as if we were
still at war, invites political terror. In some ways, this is the objective of
our warrior class, those who have been trained for war, especially
intellectuals who have lived all their lives training to fight the Cold War but
seeing it come to a satisfactory finish. If they are going to have another war
to occupy themselves with, they will have to goad peaceful nations into taking
warlike actions, even welcoming acts of political terror because it will then
"prove" their skills still are needed.
* * * * *
In the past five years, I�ve written several client letters at Polyconomics
dealing with problems of terrorism, beginning with a 1993 letter on Waco. Those
of you who have the time and interest will find four of the letters archived
and awaiting your perusal:
"The Waco Factor," April 20, 1993
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/s5u9a2.html
"From Waco to Oklahoma City," April 25, 1995
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/s5u9a4.html
"The Ugly Americans," May 8, 1995
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/s5u9a3.html
"Karl Marx and the Unabomber," August 10, 1995
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/s5u9a1.html
1998 Polyconomics, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
{{<End>}}
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
