The attacks at the Boston Marathon that left 3 dead and more than 170 injured have entered into an FBI investigation. The perpetrators have not claimed responsibility yet. President Obama has been careful not to call the bombings a 'terrorist' attack but an Obama official has gone on record calling the attacks an 'act of terror'.
Terrorism in American media can be seen as an iceberg. Only 10% of the problem is above water that can be seen, while the systemic foundation behind the causes is rarely addressed.
"Why do they hate us?" is among the most famous of President George W. Bush's quotes in his two term presidency that saw his administration lead America into a 'war on terror'. Addressing the joint session of Congress on the 20th of September 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, he posed the rhetorical question.
One he went onto answer:
"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
This rhetoric was synonymous with the Bush Presidency and has managed to find its way into the Obama administration. This became evident after a UAV (drone) attack killed a Taliban Pakistani leader, Baitullah Mehsud. In retaliation, an American citizen Faisal Shahzad, placed a bomb at a busy intersection in Times Square, in response President Obama channeled his predecessor "who would attack our citizens and who would slaughter innocent men, women and children in pursuit of their murderous agenda’ and ‘will stop at nothing to kill and disrupt our way of life". The definition of terrorism in the eyes of the American Government and mass media is the use of fear to bring down American idealism.
The attack on American idealism is an easy narrative to sell to the mass public in explaining terrorist attacks on American lives. It also helps to invoke patriotism in a time of crisis. This patriotism gathers a consensus from the public when it comes time to retaliate through the use of the military. However, the systemic issues contributing to terrorism are more complex in nature and are not always visible. I will examine two aspects from President Obama's foreign policy that maintain 'invisible' problems. To do this, I will look at an example of his administration's failure in 'hard power' solutions and in 'soft power' solutions.
The example from his 'hard power' initiatives can be seen in his use of UAVs. The realpolitik nature of drone warfare has been embraced by the Obama administration since he took office in January 2009. President Obama has order six times the number of drone strikes than his predecessor President Bush ordered. Drone strikes have been justified by the American Government mainly for two reasons. The first, is the cost effectiveness, it costs the American tax payer around $10.5 million a drone while a F-22 fighter jet can cost up to $150 million. The second, and frequent favourite by congressmen and senators in favour of drone warfare is that it lowers 'boots on the ground'.
The casualties of drone warfare are hard to calculate, an academic in the field told me today that it can placed around 4,700 with only 2% being targets of worth or as the American intelligence agencies will call 'high value targets' (HVT). So who are the other 98%? This is where anti-American terrorism begins to get spawned. A drone strike is the condemnation of a suspected enemy who has not been tried by any justice system other than American intelligence gatherings. These gatherings are done through satellites that track known suspected terrorists. These satellite observations can go on for weeks to months. The daily routine of the suspected terrorist is monitored, any 'regular' contact that the suspected terrorist has with a member of the public automatically makes that member 'guilty by association'.
Under the Military Commissions Act, it is illegal to provide "material support" to known terrorist suspect or organisations. This helps drone strikers legally kill innocent citizens (who make up the large amount of the 98%), for instance under the Military Commissions Act, an innocent shopkeeper is guilty by association if they sell a terrorist everyday groceries. This transaction is enough for a drone striker to legally blow up a shop if the suspected terrorist is in the store with shopkeeper. When intelligence reveals the innocence of the shopkeeper it is then put down as 'collateral damage'. These killings then help create a new generation of terrorists who can be orphaned or have their family torn apart because of a killing carried out by the American Government with no prior warning.
The example from his 'soft power' initiatives can be seen with America's attitude to poverty. Poverty breeds terrorism. Out of the top 10 countries that received aid from America in 2011, three of them had significant terrorist organisations residing in their country that posed a risk to America. Out of those three, only one was not at war with America. Argentina's President Fernando de la Rua said about poverty, ``Unequal distribution causes frustration and despair ... and generates the conditions that give rise to conflicts and clashes where different types of fundamentalism are at work". If a government cannot provide the suitable economic conditions for its citizens to survive, the citizens will have to look elsewhere to gain the necessities they need to survive.
Just as immigrants who could not find work in 19th century America joined gangs to provide income for their family, the poverty stricken in developing countries are joining or at least working for terrorist organisations to make a sustainable living. Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's supply of opium. This is a major cash cow for the Taliban who after a decade of war with United States still remain intact in the region. This is a $60 billion industry for the Taliban and helps funds their war effort.
The Taliban recruit farmers in the cultivation of the poppy which produces opium. These farmers have little other choice but to grow the crop. Generations of families have become dependent on the crop as a means of survival. No other industry is as lucrative in the region due to lack of infrastructure. Although Afghanistan receives more aid than any other country from America, it has fallen short to help combat the strong drug industry. This is because the aid is not enough to sustain the war torn country which is ravaged by corruption and misuse of funds.
(FIG 1. Opium Production in Afghanistan, 1994-2010)
American intervention in Afghanistan has not hindered the production of opium but in fact has nearly tripled it since arriving in the country. If they are serious about tackling the funding for the Taliban, America need to address the opium production. More humanitarian aid will be needed along with education and a functioning infrastructure in order to wean farmers off the poppy as the choice of crop. Once this is done the military can eradicate the crop in the region and cripple the stable flow of cash that the Taliban get out of this industry.
While there are a large number of reasons that can be answered to President Bush's statement, "why do they hate us?", I highlight these two examples to show why and how. There are a large number of other factors to name such as cultural, economic and ideological. These examples are at the core of America's terrorist problems. One can only hope they will be addressed soon and with competency.
No comments:
Post a Comment