Terrorism and the Nation-State
These are my alternate interpretations of terrorism and the Nation-State.
With regards to terrorism, the war on Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing to reduce it, and everything to increase it. It is likely that the US military's infiltration of terrorist organizations may allow us to better combat terrorism; however, I'd argue that that certainly isn't as efficient as free-market operations would be. However, it is certainly much better (both in terms of less murder of non-aggressors and less taxation) than modern war. As for the military strategy fr Iraq, it was strategically flawed in the larger picture of preventing terrorism. It is only going to result in more terrorism than there would otherwise have been.
The terrorists are just as stupid as those planning our militant foreign interventionism and imperialism. Terrorism does not aid the stated cause of the terrorist (usually to rid his land of infidels, etc), but only harms it. It makes Nation-States likely to retaliate, and do more of whatever it was the terrorists were complaining about.
Of course, an alternate conclusion is that the terrorists really don't want the US out of the Middle East, but want us to stay there so that they can retain a position of enormous power and influence. In parallel, it is also possible that "the US government" doesn't really want to stop terrorism, but wants it to continue, so that it can continually expand and tax more and more. However, since the terrorists tend to be religious fanatics, I think it is less likely that they are disingenuous in their stated causes; that still doesn't mean that the US government doesn't want terrorism to continue.
It is conceivable that there is collusion between the terrorists and our Nation-State. We continue occupying various parts of the Middle East and intervening, which means that the terrorist leaders will continue to occupy their positions of power. In exchange, the terrorists do the US government the favor of continuing to engage in terrorism, which of course gives the US government an excuse for stealing ever more money from the productive private sector, and an excuse for growing ever-larger. The terrorists and the US government would gain (ex ante) from this unfree anti-market "trade". US citizens lose, as does anyone in the geographical area of the terrorists, or anyone of their religion and nationality. As stated before, I'm more inclined to believe that the State is disingenuous in its stated causes than the terrorists (as they are religious fanatics); however, again, that still doesn't mean that the US government can't do anything to promote terrorism.
The first analysis is Misean, in my opinion. The second and third seem to be in a more Rothbardian vein. Of course, since the US government is composed of many people, I've been anthropomorphizing, and it is entirely possible that there are elements of both in different parts of the State.
Comments (14)
War is terrorism with a bigger budget.
War is the health of the State.
Published: September 13, 2004 11:18 AM
David,
Good piece. While I have no particular expertise in this topic, I do wonder how sincere the religious fundamentalism would be absent the Middle East's tremendous oil reserves. I think that it is not too hard to argue that throughout history religious fanaticism has had economic/political power as its ultimate driver. Although an atheist, even Hitler's fanatical racial/ethnic/religious policies were fundamentally driven by economic and political considerations.
Published: September 13, 2004 11:46 AM
"However, since the terrorists tend to be religious fanatics, I think it is less likely that they are disingenuous in their stated causes"
That's a little naive. Those with the explosives around their belts may be religious fanatics, but certainly not the decision makers, those at the top of the hierarchy. The leaders are driven solely by the will to seize world power and will instrumentalize anything to meet that objective : be it religion, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "US imperialism", etc., these are all very powerful concepts to mobilize millions of muslims and get them to surrender their bodies and souls to the leaders.
Published: September 13, 2004 12:04 PM
"Those with the explosives around their belts may be religious fanatics, but certainly not the decision makers, those at the top of the hierarchy. The leaders are driven solely by the will to seize world power and will instrumentalize anything to meet that objective"
I agree that this is most likely the case; however, we cannot know the true motivations (ends sought) of anyone, we can only infer their motivations by what they say and do. Osama Bin Ladin is perceived as a religious fanatic. I suspect that he is both a religious fanatic and power-driven. He thinks he is the right hand of Allah.
However, no matter Bin Ladin's motives, US actions abroad only make it easier for him to mobilize support. Religion would be there anyways, though would be less important if we weren't intervening in their part of the world. However, we can cease US-imperialism and our support of Israel, removing those reasons as factors used in mobilizing support.
Published: September 13, 2004 3:08 PM
David,
I agree only partially with you. You rightly say that US actions just made it easier for terrorists to gather support.
However, I doubt that withdrawing support to Israel will help to any significant extent. Terrorists will never be short of pretexts to gather popular support and carry out their actions. Neither will they stop at strictly US actions : they typically put "western imperialists" and "sionists" (or more generally non muslims) in the same "basket". They may indifferently use the "humiliation" of Bosnian muslims by the Serbs or the persecution of Chechen muslims by Russians in their speech. They recently struck Spain, and now kidnapped Italians, (presumably to punish them for their support of US policies), but also kidnapped two Frenchmen eventhough Chirac was the leader of the anti-Bush camp. It would seem the pretext was the recent French law forbidding religious signs in public schools.
So I really think US policy towards Israel should be assessed in its own right rather than in relation to the pretexts it may offer terrorists (the policy towards Israel is another debate I do not wish to start in this string of messages, but I certainly believe that a more balanced position -though not a 180° switch- might be more productive).
Again, I agree that US actions in the recent past were generally counterproductive, but now that the harm is done, reversing policy may unfortunately be interpreted by terrorists as a sign of weakness and encourage them to continue the struggle even more vigorously. Take the example of Spain : immediately after the Madrid bombings, the socialists were elected (whereas the polls showed a comfortable lead for the right, however the right were widely held responsible for the bombings) and decided to withdraw troops from Iraq. Imagine how delighted the terrorists may have been as they realised they could influence the outcome of a national election in a major democracy!
Surely the US needs to change its strategy in regard of terorism. But the US should continue to fight terrorists relentlessly (and focus on terrorists rather than bombard entire populations or try to export its model of democracy to other parts of the world). It should also stop supporting various tyrants around the world for tactical reasons, as this repeatedly ends up backfiring. However, the US should stand firm against terrorism and be careful not to show signs of weakness.
Published: September 13, 2004 5:52 PM
Dennis, Hitler was not an atheist, as neither were the Soviets. They did not believe in a single god of sorts as is popular in America for example. They were however steeped in nordic mysticism in Hitler's case and the Soviets embraced a Hegelian mysticism or mystical materialism.
An atheist embraces reason and rejects any form of the irrational including deities and mysticism.
All forms of tyrrany, of the mind and or the body requires a belief in the irrational.
Published: September 13, 2004 6:12 PM
"The terrorists are just as stupid as those planning our militant foreign interventionism and imperialism. [...] It makes Nation-States likely to retaliate, and do more of whatever it was the terrorists were complaining about."
This is a good point. We often hear that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield policies play into Bin Laden's hand and make the recruitment of terrorists easier. But the opposite is also true. Bin Laden's actions make the recruitment of new neocons that much easier.
There appears to be a symbiosis, whether intentional or not.
Published: September 13, 2004 6:13 PM
David:
I would tend to disagree. The overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein has put the world on notice that the US was going to be ruthless. Libya has already thrown in the towel – Ghadaffi must have figured out that he was next on the list.
However, from an economics point of view, I would tend to agree with Richard Clark – we would be better off if we had spent the $200 billion we spent on Iraq on internal defense. Peter Jennings, of all people, was able to expose the vulnerability of our ports to smuggling in nuclear weapons – he did it twice! Richard Clark has also exposed the weakness of our computer networks to cyber-terrorism.
The US has also done a lot to cut off funding and restrict travel. However, this comes only with an increased invasion of privacy – everybody’s spending and travel habits are now scrutinized.
The real problem is not how we got ourselves into this mess, but that there appears to be no way out of it. $200 billion between 100,000 terrorists works out to $2 million each. If we offered every terrorist $2 million each, do we think they would go away? The US measures things over a very small time scale. For GW, the fact that we have gone 3 years without another attack represents “success�. However, for Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, having to wait another 2 or even 10 years before the next major attack on US soil is perfectly acceptable. What really frightens the neo-cons is 100 missing suitcase nukes on the market and Saddam Hussein with $30 billion in the bank. Fear and insecurity tend to bring out the worst in human nature.
PS. Hitler was actually raised as a Roman Catholic
Published: September 13, 2004 8:28 PM
“Terrorists will never be short of pretexts to gather popular support and carry out their actions.�
First of all, were that true, it's still not a reason for doing the wrong thing.
Secondly, it's not true. You honestly think the Middle East is full of people desperately looking for a pretext to strap on dynamite and detonate themselves? You think it's full of idle idiots looking for a reason to endanger their lives and spread meaningless mayhem? Of course it's not. It's desperate measures that drive people to do these things. When a person's life is destroyed, his family killed, his ancestral homeland burned, and his holy sites desecreated, that's when a person becomes a terrorist. It's assymetric warfare, the only way some people see of dying a useful death since their own lives have been ruined. It may not be right, but it's not so hard to understand either.
Stop doing these terrible things to people - stop bombing their cities, murdering their children, mocking their religion, building walls through their towns, cutting off trade routes, and so on - and people will stop resorting to terrorism.
"However, the US should stand firm against terrorism and be careful not to show signs of weakness."
Since peace-making and compassion are "signs of weakness", this attitude is another indication that the US is only going to keep inciting terrorism. I have no problem with prosecuting criminals in a court of law, but killing, imprisoning, and oppressing innocent people in order to look like you're "doing something about terrorism" is simply terrorism in another form.
Hope that handbasket is comfy, folks.
Published: September 13, 2004 8:31 PM
"What really frightens the neo-cons is 100 missing suitcase nukes on the market..."
I would appreciate any links to support this statement.
Also, I haven't seen any discussions of a free-market solution to the problem of defending against terrorism.
What if the government did nothing other than defend its borders, which entails bringing all US military personnel home? What alternative defense structures might come into existence?
Published: September 14, 2004 2:08 AM
David K.
You are right; I stand corrected. I meant to state that Hitler and other doctronaire Nazis were pagans. Even characterized as pagans, their aggression against certain racial, ethnic, and religious groups, I would argue, was largely motivated, not by religious, but by political and especially economic considerations.
Published: September 14, 2004 2:54 PM
More police = more crime
It is proof.
Published: September 14, 2004 4:01 PM
Paul,
A few points in response to your comments :
- I did say that the US should focus on terrorists rather than bomb entire populations so at least it would seem we agree on something.
- it is not only desperate people who become terrorists as even educated and relatively wealthy individuals such as the 19 who crashed the planes on 9/11 can be (have been and are still being) brainwashed
- the misery you describe was essentially brought about by arab countries' own tyrants, although it is unfortunately true that the US supported (and is still supporting) many of them.
- it may be true that it is largely US actions that led to the emergence of terrorism, but whatever its causes, terrorism is there now and it is there to stay. In every western democracy and arab country, muslims and muslim children (poor and some not so poor) are being brainwashed and terrorist attacks are being planned. At this point, showing empathy towards muslims will unfortunately not suffice to stop terrorism.
Should the US still change its middle eastern policy? It certainly should. Will that help stop terrorism? Unfortunately not, it is too late now. Is the US government somehow happy that terrorists are providing it with an ideological mission that it was lacking after the fall of nazism and communism? Probably so.
In any event, there is little choice today but to fight terrorism (unless we are happy to see a worldwide islamic tyranny establish itself), although it should be fought differently. Conventional armies and bombings are highly ineffective (in addition to killing many innocent people). I may not have the magical solution but I think guerilla-type warfare carried out by mercenaries and focusing exclusively on terrorists (e.g. of the type mentioned by Hoppe in his description of "free market defense") may be the way to go.
Published: September 14, 2004 5:51 PM
As Tim said, war is terrorism with a bigger budget. And yes, there is a symbiosis between neocons and terrorists. As Eric Hoffer wrote in his classic study of cults and mass movements, The True Believer:
"There are vast differences in the contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity in the factors which make them effective. He who, like Pascal, finds precise reasons for the effectiveness of christian doctrine has also found the reasons for the effectiveness of Communist, Nazi and nationalist doctrine. However different the holy causes people die for, they perhaps die basically for the same thing."
The neocon is a holdover from past nationalist glories, while the terrorist is representative of non-state, "information" warfare. They merely represent two technological periods, but with goals which they perceive as similar; the freedom to pursue their particular goals.
As McLuhan pointed out in Understanding Media, all wars are fought using the latest technology or technologies. We have evolved from the collective army to the use of information in the Cold War and Korea, to the war of guerillas in Vietnam, to our present state of world terrorism, always using integrative versions of information technology. McLuhan pointed out that there is a historical tendency toward centralization of power as technologies developed, but with the advent of electricity and the "all-at-onceness" of world events, the trend reverses to individual empowerment and de-centralization. With electricity and the development of cells via computer networks, there is little use for center-margin and centralization. Technology empowers the individual, so terrorism becomes the war of choice. One might say that the terrorist is merely the neocon dressed in a more advanced wardrobe of technology.
At any rate, terrorism is an evolutionary process, and its methods will become increasingly individualized and international in scope, either breaking the traditional nation-state apart or redesigning it into something we will have trouble recognizing.
Published: September 15, 2004 8:14 AM