January/February 2003
Feature Articles
Holistic Health Q & A
by Dr. Ruth E. Bradley
Of quantum physics, vibrational energy
and the power of our thoughts.
The Treasures of the Amazon Rainforest
by Lenny Rader
The story of the pioneers who uncovered
the real treasures of the Amazon: healing, life-enhancing plants.
What is... Human Growth Hormone?
by Marjorie Williams
Research proves natural growth hormone
to be powerful anti-aging weapon that helps reduce body fat, increase energy
and much more.
UnCommon Sense!
by David Findlay
The War on Terrorism.
Articles on the theme "Talents & Abilities"
A Misuse of Talents & Abilities
by Lela Lilyquist and John R. Lee MD
How the Medical Establishment has been
corrupted, becoming a pawn of the drug companies.
Every Child Can Sing
by Barbara Bedingfield
An education that brings out the innate
abilities in every child.
Developing Musical Ability
by Bob & Claire Franki
Regardless of natural talent, it is
training that enables musical ability in children to shine.
Your Genius
by Linda Gaylord
Ways to discover and develop your unique
talents and gifts.
From Russia with Passion
by Oksana Kolesnikova
A talented young pianist and composer's
personal story.
Nature versus Nurture
by Charles Larsen
We all have talents and abilities,
but some are less obvious than others.
UnCommon Sense!
The War on Terrorism
by David Findlay
Sometimes there are no simple solutions. Sometimes, conceivably, there are no solutions period. In either case it is tempting to give up let things take their course "what will happen will happen."
The current "War on Terrorism" is a good example. This is not a war that we can win in any absolute sense, any more than we can win a "War on Crime," or a "War on Drugs" or a 'War on Hunger." The best we can hope for is to keep acts of terrorism within "tolerable" limits.
Or is it? Do we have to give up on a "real" solution and, instead, concentrate on securing our borders, increasing airport security, keeping track of potential terrorists, or going to war with countries that harbor terrorists?
People are not born terrorists. They become terrorists. And perhaps herein lies the key to a common-sense approach. If someone is not born a terrorist, but becomes one, then the obvious question is, "What caused the person to become a terrorist?"
This is a question that very few people seem to be asking. It is much easier to assume that terrorists are part of extreme militant groups and as such totally unreasonable or evil and, therefore, that the only solution is to eliminate them by force.
It is easy to assume a "good-hats-versus-bad-hats" mentality. With us, of course, being the "good hats" and the terrorists the "bad hats."
Acts of terrorism, however, are acts of war. Supposedly there is a distinction between acts of terrorism attacking innocent civilians and "acts of war" attacking military targets. But, I would suggest that this distinction is false. War is war. The tactics may vary, that's all. There are plenty of examples from the Second Word War where innocent civilians were deliberately targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki being classics. And, in case one argues that this was after a formal declaration of war, well, we've had many "wars" (such as Vietnam) where there was no formal declaration.
So the real question, maybe, should not be "Why do people commit acts of terrorism?" but "Why do people go to war?"
They go to war for a reason. People are reason-able. We may not like the reason or agree with it, but they are not totally irrational. And herein lies the possibility of a real solution.
The current "War on Terrorism" is largely focused on the violent acts of a few Islamists (Islamic extremists). According to one report, about one in seven Muslims can be categorized as "fundamental" or "extreme." Worldwide there are over one billion Muslims. This would mean some 143 million of them are fundamental or extreme. Even if it were one in a hundred, that would still be over a million.
Most Muslims, however, do not want war, nor do they support acts of terrorism. For every one "fundamental" or "extreme" Muslim there are at least six "moderates." People probably like you and I who just want to get on with their lives in peace and prosperity.The key, therefore, to the current "War on Terrorism" lies not in military victory against the terrorists but in the hearts and minds of this huge majority of moderate Muslims - some 857 million of them!
There is not doubt that we can win in military terms a war with Iraq. But what does this gain us? A war against Iraq will inevitably be perceived by most Muslims as an attack on a Muslim nation. Doesn't this automatically mean that quite a number of the 857 million moderates will cease to be moderates and instead, at least morally, support the extremists? Surely this is obvious.
If, however, we could win the moderates over to our side and get them to condemn the extremists, this would lead to the cutting off of the terrorists' financial support and supply lines, making it extremely difficult for them to operate.
How could we go about doing this? It is not quite as simple as just asking the heads of state of the countries involved. Democracy is not widely practiced in the Middle East. Most of the governments are either military dictatorships or puppet governments kept in place through foreign aid. And, more to the point, they are not popular with the "common people." This is also the reason that a United Nations imposed "solution" is unlikely to work. The United Nations does not represent the common people - only the heads of state.
No, we need to ask the 857 million moderates. Seemingly an impossible task but actually not all that difficult with modern polling technology. Give Gallup a few million dollars and I'm sure they would come up with some pretty accurate answers.
My guess and I'd stress that this is only an educated guess is that we should arrive at the following key problem areas:
(a) The West is perceived as supporting repressive governments to further its own interests at the expense of the common people. A good example of this is Saudi Arabia where the oil millions are largely controlled by the royal family and a tiny minority of their extremely wealthy supporters.
(b) The West is perceived as unfairly favoring Israel (predominantly Jewish and Christian) versus Palestine (predominantly Muslim).
(c) The West maintains a considerable military presence in the area to, if necessary, enforce its will. Many Muslims consider Western bases as being part of an "occupying force" in what is for most Muslims holy territory. Mecca, for example, is in Saudi Arabia.
There may be other things, but the above is sufficient to illustrate a common-sense approach.
Are any of the above point (a) (b) or (c) totally unreasonable?
(a) It is a fact that America supports regimes that are corrupt or at best undemocratic that support our foreign policy. Saudi Arabia is a classic example (we get some 11% of our oil from there). But there are other important countries such as Pakistan. Pakistan in the past a major supporter of the Taliban and itself a key training ground for terrorists is run by a pro-Western military dictator. However, the recent elections in Pakistan reflected considerable advances by the Muslim extremists expressing anti-American sentiments, which clearly indicates that the government and the people do not necessarily see eye to eye. In case anyone has forgotten, Pakistan has nuclear capability.
What should we do? Stop supporting undemocratic governments. There are those who fear that this would lead to their collapse which is quite possibly true and that this would bring about chaos in the region. To this I would answer: Is a temporary 'chaos' during a period of internal adjustment worse than what we currently have? There might be some disruptions to our oil supplies, but this is likely to happen anyway if we continue our current policies. Remember, too, the oil doesn't do anyone any good if it is not sold. So, whoever controls the oilfields has an interest in keeping up the supply. The price might be higher than what we currently pay but, if we were to calculate the true price which should include the cost of our military presence in the region some 75 billion dollars a year even without a war maybe not that much.
(b) Do we unfairly favor Israel versus Palestine? This is a thorny issue, to say the least, and both sides can make some quite convincing arguments. According to BBC World News a while back it was said that Israel receives some 3 billion a year from the U.S., 2 billion of which are tied in with contracts for military equipment from the U.S. Palestine, on the other hand, gets some 75 million. An imbalance?
My guess is that most moderate Muslims support the concept of two separate states. The plans are already on the table. While no plan will meet with everyone's approval, it is important that it is perceived that America and Britain are seriously doing their best to implement a fair agreement. This will, in the eyes of the majority of moderate Muslims, put the Islamists Hezbollah, for example, who are totally unwilling to recognize even the existence of Israel where they belong viewed as extremists who are out of sync with the modern world.
(c) By what right do we have so many military bases in the Middle East? Supposedly the agreement of the governments. If we take this agreement away which we should, since the governments are not representative of the people then we have no more right to have bases in their countries than they have a right to have bases in ours. Can you imagine Saudi Arabia with an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Mexico? or with a military base in Alaska? It is interesting that at the time of the Gulf War in 1991, Colin Powell said that American troops would be in Saudi Arabia - remember this is one of Islam's most holy of lands only temporarily and that they would be pulled out after the war. That didn't happen. Now America is discussing a regime change in Iraq, which would mean American troops employed there virtually permanently (as in South Korea).
So what should we do? Pull out our troops and military hardware. Clearly this cannot be done overnight without seriously destabilizing the area, but it can be done over a period (say 10 years). And the least we can do is to not increase our military presence.
There will be those who argue that, if we pull out of the Middle East, Saddam Hussein will go for oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This may be true, but don't forget Iran has a strong interest in the area too both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were at one time part of Persia. Maybe I'm being selfish but I would rather have Iraq and Iran fighting each other (which they were doing only a few years back) than us be at war with Iraq with the overwhelming majority of Muslims - remember some 857 million of them against us, supporting, at least morally, the Islamist extremists.
A final, and more general, comment.
America needs to give up the idea of being the "peace-keeper of the world." What we consider as "keeping the peace" is often perceived by others as "interference." And who is to say who is right it's all a matter of viewpoint.
America may be the only remaining superpower, but our role should be, not to enforce our will on the rest of the world, but to act as a leader by setting an example. We have the technology to solve many of the world's problems. There doesn't have to be a shortage of energy or food. And perhaps one of the most important ways we can act as a leader is to provide a shining example of democracy. People want what we've got even Coca Cola! The majority of people and this includes the majority of Muslims want democracy and freedom. We don't need to force it down their throats!
You can e-mail me at david@altnewtimes.com. I do appreciate hearing from you - whether you agree with me or not!
Copyright (c) 2003 Altnewtimes,
Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this web site my be reproduced without written permission of Altnewtimes, Inc.
E-mail info@altnewtimes.com