July/August 2002
Feature Articles
Holistic Health Q & A
by Dr. George Forster
Of whiplash and prescription drugs.
What is... the Organic Movement?
by Robert Roman
Part one of a three-part article detailing
the author's personal experiences and the growth of the organic movement.
UnCommon Sense!
by David Findlay
The Middle East, terrorism, weapons
of mass destruction.
Articles on the theme "To Worry Or Not To Worry"
What, Me Worry?
by AnneMarie Dyer
A vacation leads to some spiritual
insights.
Worrier To Warrior
by Lisa Raphael
The difference between someone who
worries and a warrior, a person of courage and vigor.
The Righteous Worrier!
by Rev. D. Kaye Patrick
Does worry really mean loving and caring?
Or is worrying a waste of time and energy?
Let It Go!
by Tracy Woolrich
Easy to say, but how to do it?
Why Worry?
by Bob Murray PhD
The underlying cause of over-anxious
reactions and generalized worry - and the solution.
A Balancing Act
by Charles Larsen
Of over-reacting and under-reacting
and the attempt to find a middle ground.
Too Blessed To Be Stressed
by Rev. Pat Cross
The power to choose between a human
or a spiritual view of our problems.
Remember Scarlett O'Hara
by Dave Hunt
A life without worry? How to achieve
it?
UnCommon Sense!
The Middle East, Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction
by David Findlay, editor
This UnCommon Sense series of articles is based on the premise that there are common-sense solutions to most of life's problems. Let's call this Common-Sense Axiom Number One.
Some may question this saying, in effect, "If there are common-sense solutions, why aren't they being used?" A common-sense question, I might add!
So, to the common-sense axiom, "There are common-sense solutions to most of life's problems," I would add Common-Sense Axiom Number Two: "The solutions being applied to a problem make sense to some individual or group, though these solutions may not be common-sense."
Let's apply these two axioms to the topic we were discussing in the last issue, the Middle East.
I claimed that for there to be a solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it has to be arrived at by agreement between all the key players, including all the countries supporting either side. In other words a political solution. This is, I believe, a common-sense approach that any rational person would support.
So why does the sensible solution seem so remote? Because the "solution" of keeping the conflict alive whether it be by Palestinian suicide bombers or by Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas makes sense to certain individuals, groups and countries even though it is probably also obvious to them that the "final solution" has to be political rather than military. In any negotiations the stronger player tends to come out on top. So, yes, we shall almost certainly end up with two separate states: one Israeli and one Palestinian. The question is: Who is going to have the larger share of the pie?
Let's apply our two axioms to another though related topic: terrorism.
The current War on Terrorism would be a joke, if it were not so deadly serious.
We have thousands of miles of virtually open borders. Only 2 out of every 100 containers coming into the country are inspected. Just about anyone who wants to come here can either legally or illegally. Our nuclear facilities have lots of nuclear waste, practically unguarded, and no one has a clear idea what to do with it. Our water supplies are readily accessible. We have thousands of miles of an electric grid system that is quite impossible to police. And the list goes on and on.
Even if we were to turn America into a police state, this would not put a stop to terrorism.
So, is there a common-sense solution? If the problem is terrorists, surely it makes sense to declare war on them and on their sponsoring states?
Let's go back to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for a moment. We see how in this case a military solution is never going to work. There will always be someone, or some country, willing to add fuel to the fire unless there is a political solution.
Similarly the War or Terrorism is never going to end unless a political solution is arrived at between the key players. This does not mean that we should not take sensible precautions to secure our borders, do our best to make sure that only "desirable" aliens enter the country, work on handling responsibly our nuclear waste, etc.
It sounds good but does not make good sense to say that we shall not negotiate with terrorists or terrorist sponsoring states. It does not make good sense because without negotiations between all interested parties we shall never be able to arrive at a political solution.
So why aren't we following a common-sense approach? which leads us to Axiom Two.
American foreign policy is not decided upon by you or me. And I challenge you to find anyone in your circle of friends and acquaintances who has any say on our foreign policy or in their circle of friends and acquaintances. This is why I have said in earlier articles that we have a "limited democracy." We do have a lot of freedoms compared with many other countries. We have the freedom to travel where we want, do (more or less) what we want, say what we want... America is indeed a great country! But who decides on our foreign policy?
Per Axiom Two, although our foreign policy is clearly not leading in the direction of a political solution which would be the common-sense solution someone or some groups must be gaining.
The answer to "Who?" is beyond the scope of this article, but here are some general suggestions. Governments consist of professional politicians. Most politicians want to stay in politics (with all its benefits!). Wars are good for politicians, particularly in that wars can be used to justify the expansion of government and government spending. The War on Terrorism is the "perfect" war, since it cannot be precisely defined and since there can be no precise end to it how do we know we've won? Armaments manufacturers gain by war. Clearly, if nobody wanted to fight, they would be out of business. Large multi-national corporations can benefit through there being a scarcity of the products they are selling. Take, for example, the large multi-national oil corporations. Do they have American interests at heart or their own? Whole countries benefit from the War on Terrorism. Russia and China are two major examples. Pakistan is another classic example: we pay them (by lifting the trade restrictions imposed when they first became a nuclear power) to be on our side rather than support the Taliban. Yet Pakistan, ruled by an unelected military dictator, is nuclear "saber-rattling" against India the world's largest democracy.
This brings me to what is probably the most important topic facing all of us: the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).
Sometimes common sense is expressed in old sayings. Not sure of the exact wording "Don't let the cat out of the bag"? but there's the idea that once the cat is out of the bag there's no way of getting it back in. The WMD "cat" is definitely "out of the bag" with our help, I might add. (Who supplied biological agents to Saddam Hussein?) Once the cat is out of the bag, common sense says that there is no point trying to put it back in. So, solutions that attempt to do this are futile. Even if we were to succeed in wiping out Saddam Hussein and replacing his government with... what?... we should have done nothing to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. In fact we might be doing a lot to encourage it. It would be a perfect illustration how important it would be for countries like Iran, Korea, Egypt, Sudan, etc. etc. to have WMDs so that the "big bully" would not dare to attack them. The unfortunate truth is that just about all the countries in the Middle East, Central Asia and Northern Africa either have, or have plans to acquire, WMDs and there is nothing we can do to stop them! It may take a few years, but the process is inevitable.
So is there is common-sense solution to this one?
It remains to be seen. There is, however, a common-sense approach. The solution, if there is one, has to be political. Is taking out Saddam Hussein going to increase our chances of a political solution? I doubt it! We shall have at least half the Moslem world against us that's over half a billion people.
Who gains from a military approach which is doomed to failure? The same individuals and groups who benefit from the War on Terror.
Our government is not as innocent as it might seem. (I am not targeting any particular administration but the federal government in general.) We have known about terrorists and the threat of terrorism for a long, long time.
It is easy to look back after September 11 and say "We should have seen so-and-so and done so-and-so." But the information some of it very detailed and specific was in our hands way before.
The full argument supporting this claim are beyond what I can cover in this article. If possible, get hold of the January/February issue of Nexus. For a really detailed account buy or borrow the book Bin Laden The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky. This book is particularly interesting in that it was first published in 1999. Also interesting are Bodansky's credentials. Apart from being "an international renowned military and threat analyst" he is director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. It follows that what Bodansky relates was not a secret in top government circles. The book documents very clearly the link between terrorists, terrorist groups and their supporting states. It also shows very clearly the significance of the role played by the supporting states and how that without them the terrorists and terrorist groups would be unable to function.
Which reinforces my argument that the real solution has to be political.
A final comment: Our government can only pursue foreign policies that we allow them to pursue. So we are not totally innocent either if we allow our government to pursue foreign policies doomed to failure we should at least speak up and voice our opinions. Certainly, let's do our best to defend ourselves, but let us at the same time strive for something that might work. What do you think? s
P.S. You can e-mail me at david@altnewtimes.com. I may or may not be able to comment on your e-mails in my column but they are appreciated and I will reply. Thanks.
Copyright (c) 2002 Altnewtimes,
Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this web site my be reproduced without written permission of Altnewtimes, Inc.
E-mail dee@altnewtimes.com