Fw: Looking Back at the War on Terrorism

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg at tin.it>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org
To: Nello Margiotta
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 8:05 PM
Subject: Looking Back at the War on Terrorism


LOOKING BACK AT THE WAR ON TERRORISM
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Susan V. Thompson, ed.
http://susan.thompson at moveon.org
Read online or subscribe at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub

CONTENTS

Introduction: Over a Year Later, What Have We Learned?
Why Peace?
The "War on Terrorism" So Far
The Best Unexplored Alternatives
Addressing the Root Causes of Conflict
Final Thought: Alternatives to War on Iraq
Credits
Get Involved
About the Bulletin

INTRODUCTION: OVER A YEAR LATER, WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
Sept. 11 has come and gone. It has been over a year since the terrorist
attacks, and over a year since this bulletin was created. And it has been
just over a year since the War on Terrorism was officially launched.
Since the peace bulletin was started, we have worked hard to bring you
under-reported information about the war, explain the complexities of
foreign policy, and above all, make a compelling argument for peace. Now
that the anniversary of the attacks has passed, and we face a brand-new war,
it seems appropriate to take the time to look back, and to summarize what
we've learned in the past year.
Despite a growing peace movement and the sincere efforts of many dedicated
people, the US government launched a war against Afghanistan. What were the
alternatives that the US government did not explore? What root causes of
conflict have we discovered, and what can we do to prevent conflict in the
future? What have been the consequences of choosing war as the ultimate
solution to terrorism?
In order to answer these questions, this week's bulletin is based on a
cooperative effort between peace.moveon.org and Peaceful Tomorrows, the US
peace group comprised of the families of the victims of the WTC attacks. We
hope that it will serve as a resource to answer questions about the
alternatives to the war on terrorism, to the war on Iraq, and to war in
general.

WHY PEACE?
by Barry Amundson, Peaceful Tomorrows
While grieving for my brother, my family discussed how we certainly wanted
justice brought to those who had been done this. It made us very sad and
confused that there were going to be innocent civilians killed as a result
of my brother's death. If there was going to be a military retaliation, then
that would mean that other families would be devastated just as ours had
been.
That was why we felt that the best way to honor my brother's life was to
work for peace. Many people will come to this as a natural and instinctual
part of mourning. Every emotion is valid when grieving, and you wouldn't
want to deny yourself or feel guilty for feeling anger . . . numbness . . .
rage . . . or even joy in remembering. But to end up just focusing on anger
is to rob yourself, and others.
The mission statement of Peaceful Tomorrows says two things. To seek
effective nonviolent responses to terrorism, and to identify a commonality
with all people similarly affected by violence throughout the world. The
first part of that mission statement is addressed by this bulletin and by
other efforts like it. The second part was something we experienced
personally when in January and in July of this year, members of Peaceful
Tomorrows traveled to Afghanistan to meet with innocent civilians who had
lost loved ones in the US bombing. It sent a powerful message -- that we are
all human, and we all grieve.
Let us not let anger turn to hate in our mourning, and let us work for a
world that seeks understanding, justice and peace.
For more information on Peaceful Tomorrows, please visit:
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org

THE "WAR ON TERRORISM" SO FAR
Was the war on Afghanistan a success? This excellent and highly recommended
article explores, among other things, how the war on terrorism may actually
have increased the likelihood of more terrorism, how women's rights in
Afghanistan have been affected, and how the new Afghan government was chosen
to serve only a specific set of interests. It also discusses the precarious
humanitarian situation which continues to threaten the lives of innocent
people.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14247
Here are the top ten mistakes made in war on terrorism . They include losing
Osama bin Laden and incidents such as the US bombings which targeted
weddings.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DA98.htm
Zmag's answers to the 47 most frequently asked questions about the war on
terrorism and its alternatives is an excellent resource.
http://www.zmag.org/55qa.htm
Residents of Afghanistan are tired and afraid of the continuing US presence
in Afghanistan, which may be helping militant groups recruit new members.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=167
Perhaps based on faulty intelligence, US soldiers continue to raid villages
which seem to have no connection with bin Laden, the Taliban, or terrorism.
The horrifying ordeal faced by one village, and the death that resulted, is
described compellingly by Robert Fisk.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0806-06.htm
The interim government is facing increasing instability. The interim
President has already survived one assassination attempt, and there have
also been instances of bombing.
http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/06/karzai_kabul020906
Disillusioned, impoverished and threatened Afghans may be looking to the
Taliban to restore stability.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=168

THE BEST UNEXPLORED ALTERNATIVES
War was not the only answer to the WTC attacks. There were other options
which would not have resulted in the deaths of innocent people.
1) INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTIONS
Those who are seek alternatives to violence frame the appropriate response
to terrorism as "doing justice," not "waging war." The difference is not
just one of semantics. The term "justice" suggests that the US utilize
international law and judicial procedures, including due process, to bring
the perpetrators of these war crimes to account. By pursuing justice in this
way, the US could improve its relations with many Muslims and others
worldwide, rather than destabilizing already fragile and tense relationships
across national, geographic, and religious boundaries.
For these reasons, Peaceful Tomorrows has always advocated a law-based route
for bringing the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks to justice.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 could have been defined as crimes against
humanity. Previous terrorist attacks against the US, such as those against
Pan Am flight 103, the World Trade Center, and US embassies in Africa, were
all defined as crimes, and the US was successful in apprehending and
prosecuting the perpetrators.
The United States could have cooperated with law enforcement agencies around
the world to find and apprehend Osama bin Laden and members of his network.
Through the UN Security Council, the US could have called for the
establishment of a special international tribunal to investigate and
prosecute the September 11 attacks as crimes against humanity. An
international tribunal would have had legitimacy and could have received
more international cooperation than a US court or military tribunal. It's
possible that a tribunal could even have garnered cooperation from the
Taliban, who at one time stated that they would be willing to hand Osama bin
Laden over to a third party for trial.
As we all know, the US government did not choose this option. As a result,
thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have been killed (one count puts the
number at more than 4000), and Osama bin Laden remains at large.
For a more detailed description of how an international tribunal would work
and why it could have been a better option for responding to September 11th,
check out the following article on "Terrorism and Justice."
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=169
2) DEFINE TERRORISM AND CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE ITS USE BY ANY NATION, STATE,
GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorist tactics
are often referred to as "freedom fighting," and are deemed acceptable in
certain situations. There is also dispute over whether only individuals can
commit terrorist acts, or whether nations can do so as well.
For years, the United States supported the terrorist tactics of Osama bin
Laden and the "Afghanis" since they were thought to be justified if they
helped defeat the Soviet Union. At the time the mujahadeen were referred to
as "freedom fighters." The US also supported the Northern Alliance, whom
many Afghans and human rights groups have charged are terrorists according
to the US's own definition.
Today, even though the US is currently engaged in the "war on terrorism,"
terrorist tactics are still taught at WHISC (formerly the School of the
Americas) in Ft. Benning, Georgia.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=170
In order to fight terrorism effectively, it makes sense to come to a
universal consensus as to what terrorism is, and to consistently oppose its
use by anyone. This would mean that terrorist tactics would not be used even
in order to achieve "noble" ends.
For more information on defining terrorism, please see our bulletin, "What
is Terrorism?" at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin16.php3
For more information on US ties to bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, please see
our previous bulletin, "The Frankenstein Syndrome," at
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin31.php3

ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF CONFLICT
Since September 11th, pundits have branded those who examine the root causes
of the current conflict as unpatriotic. But there's a big difference between
figuring out the root causes of an event and assigning blame. Poverty and
other root sources all contribute to the instability of the world and make
acts of terrorism and war more likely, but ultimately it is the perpetrators
of these acts that bear the full responsibility for them.
1) DISCUSS AND ADDRESS US FOREIGN POLICY
A comprehensive war on terrorism would entail examining US foreign policy.
(Or asking, in media shorthand, "why do they hate us?") Those who suggest
that foreign policy changes are necessary in order to diminish the prospects
of future terrorism are blasted these days by national security hawks and
others for being self-hating Americans and Osama-appeasers.
But this ignores the fact that leaders like bin Laden and Hussein are
experts at seizing the openings provided by US actions in the Middle East.
In his first post-bombing videotape, bin Laden referred to three policy
matters: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, US sanctions against Iraq, and
Washington's relationship with autocrats of Saudi Arabia. Playing on these
issues may be manipulative, but it does help increase the popularity of bin
Laden, Hussein and others within certain Muslim quarters.
2) ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT
Making arms less available keeps them out of the wrong hands -- it's that
simple. Cooperative efforts to reduce and eliminate existing stockpiles of
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons both in the US and elsewhere
significantly reduces the chance that they will be used. The Bush
administration and Congress should support the pending protocol to the
Biological Weapons Convention, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and
preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The US is also the worlds largest arms dealer. As such, the US should
support an international code of conduct on arms transfers and a
comprehensive ban on the sale and transfer of weapons to zones of conflict.
The US should also cease to export weapons to regimes that are undemocratic
and violate human rights. As things stand now, US soldiers often find
themselves fighting people armed with weapons marked "Made in America," as
happened in Afghanistan.
For more information on this subject, please see our previous bulletin, "The
Weapons Industry," at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin29.php3
3) FEDERAL BUDGET PRIORITIES
Spending billions of dollars on the military almost makes the actual use of
that military inevitable. Recent budgets delegated billions of dollars to
the US military, despite a failing economy and struggling social programs
within the US. It would be possible to feed every single person in the world
with just a portion of the US military budget. If our priority is going to
be peace, then the budget must reflect that.
For more information on this subject, please see our previous bulletin "War
at all Costs: The US Military Budget" at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin17.php3
4) HUMAN RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, AT HOME AND ABROAD
If the US is to provide an example of freedom, human rights, democracy, and
the rule of law to the world, then the US must preserve civil liberties for
US citizens and be consistent in its dealings with other countries. The US
should not sell arms to, or ally with, dictators and governments with poor
human rights records. It should support democratically elected governments.
And it must also support multilateral, international institutions aimed at
protecting human rights.
To learn more about recent US involvement in coups, dirty wars, and the
dismantling of multilateral institutions, please see our bulletin, "Coups
and Dirty Wars," at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin28.php3
5) WORLD POVERTY
Millions of people around the world live in poverty. The desperation of
these people may make them particularly vulnerable to terrorist recruitment
and ideologies. Poverty needs to be addressed through substantial assistance
to poverty-stricken countries and fair trade practices which benefit all of
those involved.
For more information on humanitarian aid, including its pros and cons,
political uses, and relationship to the war on terrorism, please see our
previous bulletin, "The Politics of Compassion," at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin26.php3
6) ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Developing environmentally sound energy and transportation policies could
reduce U.S. dependence on oil, which may be a driving force behind the US
engagements in the Persian Gulf. It'll also reduce the emission of
greenhouse gases which cause climate change and may lead to droughts and
other damaging weather patterns. The US should institute legislation that
demands higher fuel-efficiency for vehicles, and ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
7) WORKING FOR PEACE AT A PERSONAL LEVEL
The UNESCO charter states: "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in
the minds of men that we have to erect the ramparts of peace." In order to
work for peace, it is important to practice peaceful conflict resolution in
our own lives, and to recognize the fact that each of us has the potential
to do hurtful and harmful things to others. Peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh
teaches that even destroying all of the weapons in the world will not bring
peace, because the urge to hurt each other, the same urge which results in
the creation of the weapons in the first place, still exists within each of
us. The only way to prevent conflict and wars, then, is to recognize this
fact and to choose to act out of compassion.
For more information on how regular people can do "evil" things, and how
soldiers (and terrorists) can be trained to kill, please see our previous
bulletin, "Learning to Kill," at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin41.php3
For more on how to keep hoping and working for peace even in a time of war,
please see our previous bulletin on "Stories of Hope" at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin30.php3
It is also important to realize that the grief that was a result of Sept. 11
may have been driving the rush to war -- but that doesn't make it right, nor
even healthy. There is no doubt that the events of Sept. 11 were tragic, not
only for those who lost someone close to them, but for all of the US and
much of the world. But there still seems to be little acknowledgement that
anger and desire for revenge is one of the stages of grief -- a stage which
must eventually end.
In order to discontinue the cycle of violence, it is essential to realize
that we have a choice whether or not to act on our anger. Feeling the hurt
of loss can lead us all to say, "I want the people who did this to feel what
I'm feeling right now." If we can find compassion for others in our grief,
we can instead say, "I don't want anyone else to feel what I'm feeling right
now."

FINAL THOUGHT: ALTERNATIVES TO WAR ON IRAQ
There is still time to prevent a new Gulf War. Rep. Barbara Lee explains the
alternatives to a full-scale attack on Iraq.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=171

CREDITS
Research team:
Dean Bellerby
Joanne Comito
Maha Mikhail
Vicki Nikolaidis
Ben Spencer
Sharon Winn
Proofreading team:
David Taub Bancroft
Madlyn Bynum
Carol Brewster
Melinda Coyle
Nancy Evans
Mary Kim
Dagmara Meijers-Troller
Alfred K. Weber

GET INVOLVED
We're always looking for people who can devote a few hours a week to doing
research or proofing for the bulletins. If you're interested in helping out,
please send us a note at susan.thompson at moveon.org that gives us a sense of
who you are and why you're interested.
If you would like us to include an action, news article, or source for more
information in the bulletin, please also write to susan.thompson at moveon.org
and describe your item in the subject line.

ABOUT THE BULLETIN
The MoveOn Peace bulletin is a weekly newsletter providing resources, news,
and action ideas to over 28,500 people around the world. The full text of
the bulletin is online at http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub ;
users can subscribe to the bulletin at that address also. The bulletin is a
project of MoveOn.org. Contact susan.thompson at moveon.org for more
information.



You can help decide the direction of the MoveOn Peace campaign by
participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=224
This is a message from MoveOn.org. To remove yourself from this list, please
visit our subscription management page at:
http://www.moveon.org/subscrip/i.html?id=799-996470-6edO9Oq8CSulI6A7duchOw