Terrorism is a crime

Have we redefined war, or have we forgotten what it looks like? Perhaps we should ask, is terrorism a crime, or is it an act of war?

The widely supported response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was a military invasion of Afghanistan, beginning a war that is ongoing. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was a major act of terrorism, yet there was no war, nor could there have been, because who would we have invaded — ourselves? In 1995, the act of terrorism was properly treated as a crime because there was no other way to view it. There’s no reason to think that the same standard shouldn’t have applied in 2001, regardless of the origins of the terrorists. Indeed there have been a number of major cross-border acts of terrorism in the past, and none have launched a war.

Of course there is no international police force with any teeth, so handling the crime of terrorism presents challenges that have yet to be fully addressed. But we can be sure that if an American national committed an act of terrorism in, say, Germany, US and German authorities would work closely together to bring the perpetrators to justice. If there’s a military role in combating terrorism, it should be limited to the kind of action that delivered justice to bin Laden in nations with which we have no civilized relationships.

Of course our other war, the one against Iraq, had nothing to do with an act of terrorism, which is a separate indictment of George Bush. But it’s pretty clear that he and his people were just not smart enough to respond to 9/11 in the right way.

11/11/11

The date: 11/11/11— the 93rd anniversary of the end of the War To End All Wars. Today it’s Veterans Day, but we originally called it Armistice Day, to commemorate the end of that horrible war and honor the men who died in the trenches of Europe. It was in those days an international day of remembrance.

I missed out on the horrors of war by a few months as my four-year enlistment in the air force was over before Vietnam heated up. I consider myself lucky. I would have probably obeyed had I been ordered to Southeast Asia, but I would have come away from the war with the feeling that many lives were lost for no good reason. The same is true for both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.

We cannot show greater disrespect for our men and women in uniform than to send them to die for no good cause. They are prepared to die for their country, but should only be asked to do so in its defense. As a people, we were too easily persuaded that both wars were just — at least initially. But in my mind the fight against terrorism was and remains a law-enforcement issue, and men who had no idea what war is redefined it. The last thing you want to do is tell returning vets that their sacrifices were in vain, that their friends died for nothing, but some of them are coming home with that realization on their own.

We have a special reverence for our fallen heroes, and we should never forget their sacrifices, even if we have a hard time sometimes admitting lives were wasted.

The eye of the beholder

“Criminal” is how one of bin Laden’s sons is said to have characterized the killing of his father. As might be expected, he is reportedly charging that the mission was not to arrest his father, but to kill him. Also at issue is the disposal of bin Laden’s body at sea, and according to reports, the son says the family is reserving the right to take legal action to determine their father’s fate.

In the heat of the moment, it’s considered less than patriotic to question the way bin Laden was brought to justice — even if it contradicts our historic sense of justice. It certainly can be argued, with good cause, that Osama’s acts as a terrorist leader have been worse than criminal. But I don’t think it’s wrong to ask why it wasn’t possible to arrest him.

Not that I’m going to make a fuss over how things turned out. As much as I love our justice system, I recognize that this may have been a situation where bin Laden’s killing was the best possible outcome. I can’t picture the media and security circus surrounding his delivery to US soil, whether NY or Guantanamo.

In the end, Osama bin Laden’s demise isn’t providing closure of any kind. It’s merely prolonging the cycle of irrational violence that’s poisoning today’s world. Today for instance the first act of revenge occurred in Pakistan as a bomb killed at least 80. And one wonders who the survivors of those victims will blame for their loss?

A solemn anniversary

What a terrible anniversary we’re commemorating today. And as we remember, we are reminded that questions still surround the attacks on the World Trade Center eight years ago.

Conspiracy theories still persist, but for the most part these theories have been dismissed. No one can seriously believe that anyone in our government was complicit in these attacks.

But we know that there were advanced warnings. We know that our intelligence agencies reported to the administration that an attack on American soil was possible, and we know that Osama bin Laden himself warned that a major attack would take place. He made this warning about three weeks before 9/11.

This leaves two possibilities: one, the Bush administration was not competent to prepare or defend against a terrorism attack — or, two, that they chose to dismiss or ignore the warnings. If the latter is true, one must ask why. Again, two possibilities: either they didn’t believe them, or they did believe them but didn’t think they would be as horrific as they turned out to be. If this is the case, why? Was it true that the administration, particularly Dick Cheney, wanted an excuse to ultimately invade Iraq? Considering the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the hysteria over Saddam Hussein’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks and the claims that he possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat — both proven to be false, and possibly fabricated — one cannot rule out this possibility. An invasion of Iraq seems to have been on the administration’s agenda from the moment it took office.

The other possibilities are almost as bad. If the administration was indeed incompetent, as it seems to have been, perhaps on top of any other truth, then why was it ever reelected? Why wasn’t this incompetence probed? The same goes for the remaining possibility — that it did not believe the intelligence or bin Laden’s warning were credible. Given bin Laden’s history, why not?

The other major question surrounding this act of terrorism is the nature of our response. The destruction of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, an act of terrorism, was carried out by an American citizen. It was treated as a crime. There is a distinction between an act of war and an act of terrorism. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a crime, as were the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Regardless of the scope of the act, terrorism, unless state sponsored, cannot be considered an act of war in the traditional sense — and as we’ve seen, responding to them in that way has proven to be ineffective.

Waging war on or in nations in order to bring terrorists to justice has had the opposite of the intended effect. It has reinforced the terrorists’ mission, and it has created more terrorists. It has squandered thousands upon thousands of lives needlessly and cost billions upon billions of dollars. What’s happening now in Afghanistan and Pakistan may be irreversible, and it’s still too soon to be sure that Iraq is a settled, stable state.

It’s easy for people to become hysterical and ready to agree to anything in times of crisis, and it’s now ingrained in the American psychology that war is the proper response to an act of terrorism. But it’s not. Had President Bush announced that every law enforcement agency in the world would coverge on Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden, he would probably have had Americans’ support for this approach. But instead he whipped up public sentiment for an invasion. Granted the governing Talibans would have been unwilling to cooperate, but the mere threat of a strong military response might have changed their minds. After all, despite their radicalism, they still had to govern — and who knows… we might have captured bin Laden by now.

Bush followed this error with another — persuading the American people that an invasion of Iraq was also necessary. And now the damage has been done. Should there ever be another major terrorist attach on US soil, Americans might think the only response is a military one, and any president who tried to approach it in a more logical way would be branded a coward, soft on terrorism.