OR: You Don't Sell Much To Dead People
The debate over how to deal with terorism and more specifically "terrorist entities" (organizations like Al Qaeda, countries like the old Afghanistan and Iraq) centers around 2 central themes. The first approach is that the U.S. and the coalition of the "dragged along" (those who will not oppose us) should decide which places need to have their people subjegated or destroyed. The second approach is that we must learn to deal with cultures different from our own, accept their right to be what they want to be and make peace in a way so that mutual respect, if not friendship, can occur. Both themes have some "allure" but neither will provide the West with safety or security, regardless of how many Neocons climb the statue of liberty to proclaim the cultural superiority of the U.S.
The problem with both of these approaches is the underlying culture of capitalism in the West and how the West is viewed in non-Western countries and peoples. The purpose of the military in a capitalist society is to ensure our ability to sell goods and services to everyone (regardless of culture). We sold weapons to the Contras, the "freedom fighters in Afghanistan leading up to the Soviet withdrawl" and some of our best clients are Saudi Arabia and Israel. We sell to China and we would sell to North Korea if they had the money and the interest (or at least the money).
What you can't do under capitalism with the military is solve terrorism. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a terrorist-supporter and as a matter of fact I am a capitalist but capitalists know all about "acceptable risks." That term may sound cold and heartless because it is often applied to situations like those where we place 150,000 troops in a Middle Eastern country for the purpose of reworking a dictatorship into a democracy allowing we are going to lose 2000 to 3000 troops in the process. We can accept the loss because the "greater good" (our economic and political gain) will allow us a base for control of the region and the potential for economic development and gain. But terrorism thrives in areas without hope and with no chance of gaining the cultural respect needed to live life as you think it should. The terrorists, regardless of the money in the Bin Laden family are mostly "have-nots" who have "nothing to lose." The recent propoganda display of Iraqi bombers talking about how they would be rewarded for their deaths and then blowing up targets tells the capitalist mind that these guys aren't likely to be buying our soap powder anytime soon.
What about, then, the approach where we use a "scorched earth" policy of using whatever troops we need and just routing out the terrorists in Iraq (for starters) and just killing them? Is this acceptable to the businessmen on Wall Street and the Pentagon? Well, up until now, no. The reason is that while the first approach is conducive to an immediate result, it probably precludes any chance of long term peace and long term peace (selling our soap powder to Baghdad housewives) is more our goal than the destruction of terrorists.
Then there is the enormity of the issue. Terrorism is thriving in at least 50 countries around the world, some as close as Mexico. People who have a political voice may even become terrorists if the process of political change becomes too slow for their interests. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were terrorists. They had no islamic leanings and should have understood the capitalist system. That was the problem, they did. Islamic terrorists understand the capitalist system, also. They also reject it as phony and robbing of what they consider their "spiritual dignity."
Most capitalists don't understand how "spiritual dignity" relates to buying soap powder. But when you think of political power, soap powder has a real effect on this. Consider the Soviet Union and how communism was really defeated. It was more about Gap jeans than the arms gap. The people eventually tired of a system where most of the "civilized world" (the West) could get the goods and services they wanted while they waited in long lines for toilet paper rationed by their government. Governments like those in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, and many others understand the effect of Western culture. It means the end to their control. They may be doing it for spiritual dignity but terrorism ultimately becomes "us versus them" when it comes to effecting political change.
Ultimately, capitalists know that change in most of the world occurs slowly and capitalists have time on our side. A scientist controlling a reaction in the lab is much like U.S. policy in that regard. We accept a few beakers will blow up and people will be hurt. But we don't destroy the lab because we have failures, we try different approaches that work better. The U.S. military isn't going to bomb terrorists into submission. We are going to have a few failures, take a few losses (acceptable) and control the situation until these people are ready to buy our soap powder.
You do want to sell soap powder to Baghdad housewives, right?