|
news
Not the end of
terrorism
By Jeanne Hoffa
On-line Forty-Niner
President Bush's
decision to bomb Afghanistan may fuel the very terrorism it
intends to destroy, according to Cal State Long Beach history
professor Donald Schwartz.
"I think we're
in a very precarious position right now," said Schwartz,
an expert in modern European diplomatic history. "We
have to avoid making this attack look like an attack against
Afghanistan, and an attack on the nation of Islam in general.
"We could
make this extremist movement very popular," Schwartz
said, adding that military strikes in the Middle East might
be interpreted as a war against Islam, a war he said that
no one can win.
Americans reported
in some polls that they approved of military intervention
in Afghanistan at a rate of 93 percent.
But Schwartz warned
that unless the United States examines the long-range impact
of its foreign policy, global support and public opinion are
likely to decline.
"This kind
of attack, with cruise missiles, it makes some of us feel
good," he said. "They attacked the World Trade Center,
we're attacking them. But what are we attacking? I mean, we're
attacking a country that has largely been devastated."
Other professors
were considering whether the ultimate goals of the attacks
had been thought through. CSULB professor Arlene Lazarowitz,
a U.S. foreign relations expert, said Afghanistan is not a
nation in the conventional sense, but rather a group of warring
factions.
"If we take
out the Taliban, who are we going to replace it with?"
Lazarowitz asked.
She described the
country as pre-industrial, eviscerated, and largely evacuated.
"We cannot
use conventional bombing to bring them to their knees,"
she said.
Lazarowitz said
anger towards the United States has been brewing in the Middle
East for a long time. Though America has worked hard to form
a coalition with countries in the area, the choice to strike
one spot could easily infuriate some people in other parts,
spark infighting, break up the coalition, and even incite
war, Lazarowitz said.
Americans should
eventually examine claims that U.S. foreign policy has sometimes
contradicted its stated goals of freedom, human rights, justice,
and democracy, Schwartz said.
The acting director
of the CSULB international studies program, Larry George,
said there are four or five reasons why people in the Middle
East are angry with the United States.
The expert in foreign
military interventions and 20th Century wars said Palestinians
are uncomfortable that the United States maintains military
bases near Israel.
American support
of Israel has inadvertently allowed some extremist Israeli
groups to flourish, to seize occupied territories that are
not rightfully theirs, and even threaten the existence of
the Palestinian state, said George. He cited other sources
of conflict.
•United
States manipulation of oil politics. Those policies might
go over better if the United States were to encourage local
governments they align with to redistribute the oil wealth
in the regions.
•Arms
sales to the region. The United States has armed the Saudi
airforce, and provided low-tech weapons and anti-aircraft
to different countries, including Afghanistan.
•Support
of governments that have proven to be oppressive, such as
Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan and Pakistan.
•Support
of economic sanctions against Iraq, where the chief victims
are children, not the leaders.
"There has
been a lot of anger at the U.S. for its support of Israel
and its failure to follow through long-term commitment to
replenishing the economic base and help provide humanitarian
aid in the area," George said.
Going before the
United Nations and using the rule of law instead of the rule
of force would have made a different statement to the world,
and would have inspired more global support and respect in
the long run, Schwartz said.
Dealing with terrorism
is a difficult and long-range operation, Schwartz said. He
praised Bush's efforts to work with Islamic governments to
give food and aid to the Afghani people.
But he said that
the fight against terrorism involves a force that is very
difficult to identify, and not a military one.
"It is in
our interest not to create a new generation of suicide bombers.
And how do we do that?" Schwartz said. "The attacks
by hijackers were completely insane. It was an irrational
response."
|
