|
|
holonics |
body |
mind |
spirit |
About |
|
||||
|
War on Terrorism We Have Been This Way Before The day after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, 12/7/41, Roosevelt urged a joint session of Congress to declare that a state of war existed with Japan (and with the axis powers, including Hitler's Germany). Only one Congress member voted in opposition, in sharp contrast to the previous summer when renewal of the draft was passed by just a single vote. What a difference a day makes -- when it is a "day of infamy", Roosevelt's characterization of 12/7/41, that 60 years later applies to 9/11/01. Drafted at 18, I was pulled out of the infantry to learn Japanese, sent to Tokyo Feb-Aug. '46 as a 20 year old interpreter in an army intelligence unit. Along with thousands of others trained in these tasks, I participated in disarming the populace, repatriating refugees, preparing for a democratic election, guarding the new prime minister, keeping law and order, and coordinating with the Japanese police. When I followed the Tokyo war crimes trials, I learned something that had puzzled me for years, the reason the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor when they had no intention of an invasion. Tojo thought he was sending the US a message: "Stay out of this." Behind that, what unfolded pretty much according to plan was another message, "We are carving out an empire in South East Asia, as the great European powers have already done in Asia and Africa. It's our turn. We have nothing against the US. We are just cautioning you to stay out." The message received could not have been different. The US near-unanimous reaction was not only "We're at war", but what fairly quickly became clear to all Americans, the US intention, "No matter how long the war and how steep the price, we'll settle for nothing short of unconditional surrender and an occupation of Japan under our complete control." Tojo had not expected such huge destruction at Pearl Harbor, which contributed to the de facto miscommunication of 12/7/41. Nevertheless, Japan's 12/7/41 action and the US reaction has to go into the record book as the mother of all miscommunications. The information that came in 1946 that the war was caused by Tojo’s miscommunication seemed unimportant. Although mentioned briefly at the time, any possibility of Americans accepting a share of the miscommunication blame was ignored amidst the jubilation of a victorious peace and a natural reluctance to dishonor our dead war heroes. The subsequent fifty years saw an archetypical war heroes myth established. The "greatest generation" had fought on to success after a crippling initial blow at Pearl Harbor. There was no significance given to any misunderstanding that might have been averted. Sixty years later, the 9/11/01 terrorists had a lot of planning and luck on their side to get such attention and clarity for their message. There is little doubt that they were trying to say something like, "We terrorists intend to destroy you. We start by destroying two symbols of your much vaunted superpower status, the heart of your financial center and the heart of your military power. You are a helpless giant." But why do they hate us? Is it jealousy or is it envy? Is it the result of a few maniacal minds leading pliant followers who can be misled into self-destruction by a phony myth? Is it a genetic disorder? Are any of these reasons widely shared beyond the terrorists themselves? By Muslims in some countries? Everywhere? By Arabs? There are dozens of possible interrelated reasons. Let us look at what the American people believe on this subject by their answers to a question from the Harris Poll of Sept. 19-24, 2001: Which ONE of the following do you think is the main reason why those who attacked us and their supporters hate the United States? …
Other than the fourth ranking choice of 17% of the population, which examines our affect on the terrorists and their region, the other four all have a US viewpoint. The fourth comes closest to the truth. The best way to look at the truth is this: The terrorists have no concern with who we are, how we feel, or what we do. By their actions and their words which are now known, if they thought that all Americans had died they would not have a moment’s regret. What they hate is what we or the US, the leader of the western world, has done in their countries that make it impossible for them and all right-thinking Muslims to lead the lives they would like to lead as good Muslims. For the religious fanatics, it is that it is very hard to keep their children and themselves (and by extension all right thinking Muslims) from drinking cokes, eating hamburgers, going to discos, forgetting to pray 7 times a day, etc., etc. A more familiar analogy is this. No one likes mosquitoes or rodents, but they are a fact of life and outdoors few people go much out of their way to kill them. But if they are in our own house, biting, irritating, hurting our children, few people get much rest until they have all been killed. Yes they hate us for all the reasons mentioned above, but the real problem for many Muslims and particularly the terrorists is that we Americans and those from developed countries like us are just in the wrong place. If we and our influences somehow had, long ago, been removed from their parts of the Middle East, the terrorists would not have gone to all the trouble of preparing for long-planned difficult multiple suicide attacks on such visible national symbols. So the two events 60 years apart have one important thing in common. They can be accounted for now as known and understood misunderstandings or miscommunications. But that does not mean that they could have been avoided, UNLESS we (they) understood their (our) attitudes and what those attitudes might lead to in the long years before the terrible event and had taken actions that eliminated that miscommunication. But that is unrealistic. We would have thought that the price in lost commercial and human possibilities was too great and the likelihood of making a real difference too remote. That situation is so universal that it is often thought of as "the human condition." The two events had one other thing in common. On the day before the day of infamy, no American could imagine how enormously devastating each was to be. Can we say what this analysis presages for the future? Let's recall what happened in Japan after the 1945 surrender. If all's well that ends well, the brilliant performance of MacArthur converted a totalitarian enemy monarchy to a friendly, capitalist democracy in a couple of transforming years. Nothing like it has ever been done before or since. History slowly spirals around. The opportunity to do something like it occurred in the 1991 Gulf War, when the allies were on the way to destroying the military forces of Iraq. George Bush1, the most pro-military president since WWII, after four days of successful battle, decided to stop, not go on to Baghdad, not take out Saddam Hussein and not "finish the job". Why? Many reasons have been given, but one was obvious to me. Bush1 had four war days, not the four years, 1941-1945, that the US used not only to make war, but to plan for peace and the transformation that unfolded in Tokyo from 1945 to 1948, thanks to the thousands in the Occupation trained to help make it happen. At the deciding moment, Bush1 had far too few trained and ready people to oversee and restore a conquered Iraq. Beyond that, Bush1 was no MacArthur. Taking a long view what mistake did Bush1 make? The appropriate analogy this time is the Versailles peace treaty ending WWI. The shortsighted French refused to make peace with the existing German government, demanding a new government that would accept onerous reparations. In the ensuing years the Germans came to believe that they had not lost the war but had been betrayed by their traitorous government. Hitler prepared for a rematch that the French with their impregnable Maginot line could not take seriously. The outcome that civilization barely survived was WWII. The apt analogy is that Bush1's failure to finish the conquest of Iraq and take responsibility for bringing the people of Iraq into the community of friendly, economically viable, democracies left many around the world believing that the US, lacking will, was a hollow superpower, which could be brought down by determined, smart people with God and/or justice on their side and without even trying to match the superpower military and economic might. This belief was reinforced by subsequent military engagements when our leaders reacted to TV news clips of 15 dead US soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and similar events, and made clear that our highest priority was avoiding casualties to our side. In this our leaders were wrong on two counts. One is that, when all else fails to stop the heinous behavior of rogue countries and terrorists, the American people are ready to go to war almost regardless of the casualties expected. The second is that it confirmed our reputation with anti-US extremists that we are a paper tiger. In another turn of the spiral, ten years later this terrorist problem has grown monstrous and has become the son's responsibility. George Bush2 quickly stepped to the plate and declared a long, hard "war on terrorism". With widely known, decade-long failures of the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty", perhaps it would have been better if he had avoided the "war" word that he himself defined as a "war unlike any other war". At this point he has the US in the same brave and united mood as it was in the days after the Pearl Harbor bombing. Bush2 is able to get the full backing of Congress for any rational plan. A $40 billion starter appropriation on 9/14/01 was approved with (deja vu all over again) only one dissention in Congress. Can Bush2 become a Roosevelt or a MacArthur? Before 9/11/01 Bush2 antagonized many Americans and most of the rest of the world with his pro-militarism, his canceling US participation in many international agreements, his postponing critical environmental care, his technique for saying clearly and simply what seems confident and presidential unless you know he is relying on bad information, his faith that free-markets should be the guiding principle of globalization, and his disinterest in world problems not immediately affecting the US. His international aloofness went well beyond his father's. But, at this writing, Bush2 seems to understand that he must handle this situation very differently than anything else that he has done. All we can do is work for a real worldwide victory against terrorism, as much as possible with non-military methods. And pray. But also weep, and not just for the victims of terrorism. I favor an all-out war on terrorism done intelligently, but I also believe that if $40 billion extra was voted for the environment, energy, or other worthy causes (there has never been a remote chance of that) the deaths avoided in America alone, would be many million, a thousand times greater than the number that perished in the 9/11/01 attack. That death reduction would come from the reduction of toxic wastes and air, soil and water pollution; the eradication of devastating diseases and the protection and conservation of vital resources, and in time a far better economy. To help justify the expenditure for the war on terrorism, we are told that the 9/11/01 attack produced more civilian casualties than ever occurred on US soil. Well, maybe. What about 100 years and 3 days before the 9/11/01 terrorist attack, the Galveston, Texas, hurricane that killed over 5000 people and destroyed the city? And there are others. * * * About the Author |
|||
  |
||||
We
are what we think.