catapult magazine

Bush said today that “terror is not the tool of the free.” Turn the sentence around and it reads, “terror is the tool of the unfree.” Somehow I doubt if Bush thought through the implications of that sentence.

I wanted to talk about about Bush’s statement, but I shouldn’t have made it sound like Bush had some kind of hidden agenda or that I was reading some sort of mysterious meaning into a rather banal statement. What I wanted to show was that nationalistic gobeligook such as this is not only ridiculous, but also imprecise and not very meaningful. Meaningless is a strong word, but when the president constructs any sentence containing the words ‘freedom’ and ‘terror’, both of which have become meaningless words to me, I can’t make sense of the rest of it either.

I specifically mentioned the care which is taken in writing presidential speeches in order to show that they should be held to a higher standard than when the president responds to questions at a news conference (which he almost never does). So if he makes a carefully planned statement that has unintended shades of meaning, or which can be easily interpreted in ways which contradict the president’s agenda, then there is a problem.

If one can logically deduce from Bush’s speech that Iraqi terrorists are freedom fighters, then one must conclude that either the freedom being imposed by US forces in Iraq is not real freedom, or that there are two diametrically opposed versions of freedom which cannot co-exist. Obviously this is not a line of reasoning the speechwriters had considered. But they should have. Terrorism is a touchy business from a historical perspective, seeing as the United States got it start through terrorism against the British Empire, a kind of terror the English found barbaric and unfair.

No doubt Bush is a populist president who appeals to the lowest common denominator. His statements are confident, grand, and sweeping but take for granted exactly the things I mentioned: 1. Freedom emanates from America. 2. America is a terror-free zone. 3. Freedom can be imposed. His statements makes absolutely no sense without those three assumptions. So if the hearer agrees with Bush on those three points, then most certainly his speeches will sound logical and persuasive. My apologies again for having assumed a different starting point.

Dan, you underestimate Bush and the strength of media style political rhetoric. Bush’s statement may seem meaningless and ridiculous to you, but it was not to many Americans listening. I can see that his statement is overly simplistic, but given the genre, it was necessarily so. Then was not the time for detailed or complicated arguments. That having been said, I can see how your point that it might have been put differently.

Also, the freedom being imposed by the US may not be true freedom, but it is the stated goal. It’s ridiculous to imagine a “clean” break from the tyrrany of Saddam to the sort of freedom you imagine. In fact, if the US had deposed Saddam, and left, there would have been a power vacuum. I know you would have preferred that Americans had not taken unilateral action, but with the exception of American’s reputation around the world, do you think the situation with respect to freedom would be terribly different (forces from the outside occupying)? Or do you mean to argue that Saddam ought to have stayed in power until we could have figured out to “let freedom ring” in Iraq in the blink of an eye?

Finally, do you mean to suggest that America has roughly the same amount of terrorism as just about every other country in the world? Do you mean to deny all any inverse relationship between relative degrees of freedom and terrorism?

One of the hallmarks of free government is the ability to change things with which the people cannot live. The civil rights movement changed things in America, as did the women’s suffrage movement. The structure of our government allows for such change. When things cannot be changed, people (i.e. the unfree) resort to violence and terrorism. Is this idea illogical?

There is a genius to the American system of government. Very rarely has a small group of people possessed power and willingly given it into the hands of the people. It is on account of this genius of the American system of government that a Communist such as Ho Chi Minh, even while fighting against America, could have a picture of George Washington hanging beside his bed. Freedom does not emanate from America, but other countries have been able to adapt its system profitably.

There is a danger in America imposing its sort of freedom on foreign countries. The differences between cultures, with their values and presuppositions, cannot be overlooked. But I hope some sort of free government by Iraqis will prevail. I hope that freedom is not entirely hopeless.

Do you think the values and expectations of the Iraqis make the possibility of free government in Iraq impossible?

Yes. Very different. For example, the Iraqi governing council wants more Arab troops in Iraq, but Arab countries aren’t willing to be seen as Bush’s lackeys. UN leadership would have give the occupation a legitimacy and would have assured people around the world, but especially in the Middle East, that the occupation is truly in the interests of the world, not just in the interests of America. Terrorist would have still attacked the occupying forces, but my guess is that there would be a heck of a lot less sympathy for the terrorists around the world, especially if they’re killing kids from your country.

I wouldn’t say it’s illogical, but I also wouldn’t say it’s true. This is why the word ‘freedom’ is problematic. You can certainly argue that all terrorists are unfree, but you can’t argue that they all lack political freedom. McVay had the same political freedoms as all of us. So did those snipers in the Washington DC area. Then you have to resort to arguing that their unfreedom was spiritual or psychological. Conversely, policial freedom under Saddam was very limited, but Iraq experienced virtually no terrorism, unless you consider state violence against its people as terror. Whereas under US occupation with finally the beginnings of political freedom, there is now plenty of terror.

I would also like to question your assertion that many countries have adapted the US system. Certainly it has been an inspiration, but few see it as the democratic ideal. New democracies in Eastern Europe, for example, mostly adapted parliamentary models based on European examples.

Regardless, I’m with you in the hope that democracy can be established in Iraq and that Iraq will have the chance to be a land of opportunity and prosperity for all. I think it can be done. Maybe it can even be accomplished under U.S. guidance. Stranger things have happened.

I was actually referring to the reality that any time foreign forces invade and occupy, there is an infringement on the freedom of the people being occupied. That is why I was careful to say not only “with respect to freedom” but also “(forces from the outside occupying).” The situation in this respect would have not been different. Whether it’s the US or a whole lot of nations, the point is that occupation deprives the citizens of a country of their freedom. You actually affirmed my point by saying that there would still be terrorism. The only difference you noted was that opinions about such terrorism around the world would have been different.

You make some good points, though. You’re right that we’d be more popular and would have made more friends on the world playground. Alas, the court of world opinion does matter. Still, it’s not the only thing that matters.

Also, you’re still arguing against positions no one hold to. But I guess you’re not willing to take people at their words. You seem to have mirror ball that tells you what people are actually thinking. Can I look?

Do you believe that Bush believes and said that terrorism has NEVER been committed by a free person? You’re free to challenge the idea that free people generally do not resort to terrorism (which I think is what Bush was asserting, but who knows, I don’t have the mirror ball). But don’t argue as though Bush had asserted no free person anywhere has ever committed anything close to what could be construed as terrorism. Had he, both he and his scrutinizing team of script writers would appear awefully dumb. You’re arguments don’t hold unless you presuppose that Bush was making an absolute, not a relative, statement.

Actually in rethinking Bush’s statement, he might have been asserting something we haven’t considered yet. Bush started the quote mentioning democracy. Later, he mentions “the free.” The free may then be in opposition to tyrants such as Saddam and bin Laden, both of whom perpetuated terrorism by supporting it. But I guess this interpretation would open the question of whether free governments generally perpetuate terrorism or whether terrorism is more commony associated with tyrants.

I’ve done a bit of research as to US adaptations around the world, and I was wrong. In Latin America, in the wake of Spain, most countries adopted constitutions similar to the US’s, but with little success. They lacked the background of the American Constitution, including English common law practice.

Well I think it’s odd and very confusing to put bin Laden and Saddam in the same sentence. Bush groups stalinist, baathist, and terrorist leaders in the same category, but in order to have a nuanced discussion here, we can’t group them all together like that. Calling them tyrants is a bit misleading, especially for bin Laden who does go on some tyrades, but certainly doesn’t have a country to be a tyrant over. We’ve got to make distinctions.

For example, bin Laden perpetuates terrorism. Yes. Absolutely. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, kept his own country free from terrorism. He gave money to the family of suicide bombers in Palestine. Otherwise we have no evidence that he supported global terrorism. Bush and company kept insinuating that there was more information—some vague mumblings about terrorist camps in the north of Iraq—but the information was not forthcoming, and I have chalked it up to pre-war propaganda and deception.

Concerning ‘free’ governments (I assume you mean democracies), yes many have perpetuated terror. The United States is the best example, actually, having supported all forms of anti-communist terror in S.E. Asia and Latin America during the Cold War.

I don’t think terrorism has much at all to do with freedom. Terrorists emerge from all sorts of societies, all sorts of families, all sorts of religions, regardless of the regimes they happen to be born under. One thing that seems constant is that they are young and mostly men. Often religious fanatics.

If freedom were the cure, those 20 hijakers who lived in the US for a long time taking flight lessons would surely have realized their opportunities, gotten a job, and started a family.

Or were you meaning something else? Maybe you can explain what you mean by democracies or tyrants perpetuating terror. I just can’t see any connection.

Dan, could you offer a definition of terrorism and outline the US’s use of terrorism in light of that definition?

Here’s a definition from yourdictionary.com

The U.S. has armed, trained and financed some of the world’s worst terrorists, including Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala that killed almost a half million people were financed by the United States. The U.S. also backed the Contras in Nicaragua in a war to overthrow the Marxist Sandanistas who had the support of most Nicaraguans. Tens of thousands died. Then there is the infamous ‘Bay of Pigs’ incident, which was a badly planned invasion of Cuba by U.S. trained Cubans with a chip on their shoulders.

Those are a few examples of the United States supporting terrorist groups, ie. insurgents fighting communist governments. Broaden the definition to include state terror, then one can include the slaughter of 3 million civilians by US troops in the Vietnam War, etc.

I know that at the time these attracities seemed justified in light of fears of communists, but they do seem to qualify as terrorism, particularly the insurgent groups supported by the US, often against the popular will of the country involved.

But my point is not to say how bad America is or was. My point is that I’m not sure terrorism can be blamed on any governmental system. Some dictatorships and kingdoms support terror (Syria, Saudi Arabia). Some dictatorships and kingdoms don’t support terrorism (Brunei, Uzbekistan). Democracies don’t generally support terror, but I’ve given some examples of when it can and does happen.

Bush’s argument is that democracy makes the world safer. I would like to see a more democratic world too, but the way Bush is trying to force the issue, seems to me to be making the world more dangerous.

Perhaps we can agree that terrorists FEEL unfree. All of them feel somehow oppressed. Al Qaida terrorists feel oppressed by the United States. FLQ terrorists in 1970s Quebec felt oppressed by the Canadian government. Anarchist terrorists in turn of the century Russia felt oppressed by the monarchy. US-backed Contras in Nicaragua felt oppressed by the Marxist Sandinista government. Americans felt oppressed by British tea taxes.

But I don’t think that is what Bush meant.

Dan, I think Uzbekistan should be on the other list. Yes, they were part of the “coalition of the willing,” and yes, the US government has increased aid to them in recent years, but the dictatorship still appears to be rather brutal and seems to fit the definition you posted. (Maybe in 10 to 20 years, we’ll decide we need to liberate those people, too, instead of looking the other way).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html