Articles from the Religious Research Journal
The “War on Terrorism”
We hear so much about the US Government’s “War on Terrorism.” Even the expression, “War on Terrorism,” has become blasé. Perhaps many people understand that there never was really a war on terrorism, that this expression was used to justify a small, poorly supported military incursion into Afghanistan, and a large invasion of Iraq. Yet, again and again we hear people say they are grateful for the president’s leadership in the “War on Terrorism.”
I am not attacking any one person here. Both political parties and both houses of Congress supported the “War on Terrorism.” But I am curious that we feel that America is, in fact, engaged in a war on terrorism, and that we the American citizens somehow benefit from this effort.
I believe the known facts now demonstrate that the so-called War on Terrorism is a fairly obvious smokescreen for a personal and political agenda. Why do I say this? Because if we truly wanted to address the evil of terrorism in the world, we would go about it completely differently.
Approaching terrorism like poverty
As regular readers of this Journal know, I have spent most of my career of 30-plus years working in developing countries – poverty alleviation, agricultural development, small business development, management training, technology transfer, etc. I view the current US reaction to global terrorism through the lens of a multi-decade effort to respond to global hunger and poverty. I ask myself: what does America know, based on some 50 years of experience in dealing with other nations and cultures, that can guide us in this time of crisis?
For years, US aid programs around the world (as well as those of many other governments) were accused of “throwing money at problems.” It was assumed that if we just spent enough, the problem would go away – more or less regardless of how the money was spent. If people were hungry, we fed them; if they were homeless, we sheltered them. But there were always more and more hungry, homeless people.
During the 1970s and early 1980s, the catch-phrase of the international development community was “the root causes of poverty.” Any aid program that addressed symptoms or consequences of poverty – such as hunger or homelessness – without addressing the underlying causes of poverty was promptly deemed to be wasteful, irrelevant and possibly contributing to the problem. No matter how compassionate or well-meaning the effort, it was perceived as badly flawed if it did not seek to reduce the recurrence of poverty even as it addressed the human misery which poverty produces.
This, of course, made our anti-poverty work far more complex. What exactly are the root causes of poverty? They are many, of course, and vary from place to place. Working internationally, I have been in a conversation such as this many times:
We must help these poor people. They are starving.
Why are these people hungry? They can no longer fish as they have always done.
Why not? The river and lake are so polluted that all of the fish have died, and the water is not fit to drink.
What has caused the pollution? A big industrial plant upstream.
Why has this been allowed? The company (typically with foreign financing) was able to bribe the politicians or the government department so that they are permitted to pollute the river and the lake.
And what about the people who are affected? They have lost their source of food, their livelihood, even their source of safe water. When they protested, they were imprisoned and some of them were killed.
So, how would you help these people? Feed them? And tomorrow? Many people are drawn to the popular adage, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” But these people didn’t need to be taught how to fish; they’ve been fishing in these waters for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.
To address the “root causes of poverty” we development workers found ourselves getting more and more drawn into social issues, political issues, and economic issues that were far broader than basic food or the livelihood of a few poor villagers. The real solution of the human suffering we encountered lay not in short-term feeding programs (however appropriate those may be in some circumstances), nor in teaching fisher-folk how to fish, but rather in long-term systemic change.
What are the root causes of terrorism?
Like poverty, terrorism also has root causes. And, as in eradicating poverty, eradicating terrorism requires addressing the circumstances that foster and enable terrorism to occur. Interestingly, since long before the September 11 attacks, we have known of terrorism in the world, of its root causes, and of ways of addressing it. Immediately after 9/11, the media presented this awareness. Anchorpersons and “special reports” spoke of poverty, oppression, unemployment, lack of opportunity and lack of education as being endemic in the parts of the world that we identify as terrorist breeding grounds.
The young men who are drawn to join rebel forces and terrorist movements throughout the world typically come from such circumstances. They have no land. Lack of farmland, even a few acres, cheats them of the ability to feed themselves, to be gainfully employed and make an investment for their own and their children’s future. The lack of a secure homeland cheats them of the security of living in safety, of knowing that they have a place to which they belong, and which belongs to them.
In virtually every terrorist site in the past 20 years – Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan – the jobless rate for young males has been very high – 25 percent or more. In such circumstances, the prevalence of crime is very high; the police or paramilitary are unable to stop it. Inevitably, young men in such situations – as in inner city ghettoes in America – see crime as a way out of poverty.
The notorious suicide bombers of Palestine and al Quaeda typically grew up in desperate circumstances. No doubt, a few of their leaders came from the middle class or the well-to-do. But the bulk of the ordinary “combatants” come from backgrounds of poverty, landlessness, and hopelessness. With no land, no work, no money and no home, they cannot marry, have a family, become part of society, or build for the future. Facing poverty, oppression, landlessness, with no education and no hope of things getting better, they have nothing to lose.
How does one militarily defeat fighters who believe they have nothing to lose in this world and, in dying, much benefit to gain in the afterlife? It is easy for religious zealots to capture the imagination and loyalty – the minds and hearts – of such people. Could an answer to hopeless rage at intolerable injustice lie in becoming a martyr for one’s faith?
People with little education, high frustration, and little awareness of the world outside their small focus, are easily manipulated. It is hardly unusual for those who would be political leaders to use simple-minded local religious leaders to further their political gains. An unenlightened approach to religion, any religion, readily leads to a perception of oppression, exclusivity and defensiveness. Well-intended local priests can be used by political leaders to stir up the passions of the people and the bravado of youth.
People who have nothing to lose do not have to gain very much in order to find the gain appealing. The fervent promise of abundance in the afterlife looks good to one who has known nothing but scarcity, warfare and humiliation in this life.
I suggest that these are the root causes of terrorism: injustice, oppression, hunger, poverty, a sense of betrayal, and the crippling lack of land, identity, education, opportunity, respect and hope.
Light a candle.
What we would be doing, if we sought to eliminate terror in the world, is precisely what has been suggested often by the socially conscious among us (and occasionally by the media, though rarely by our political leaders). Simply put, we would work to decrease and minimize the circumstances that spawn, nurture and feed on terror itself. This is a more effective way of eradicating terror than is shooting the occasional terrorist. “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”
Can we seriously doubt that we would sleep better if Afghanistan had a stable government and a productive economy? If Palestinians had their own homeland, with plenty of new investment and enough jobs for all who can work? If “hot spots” throughout the world could offer their young men and women a safe place to live and work, enough jobs and at decent wages, education, health care, and a reason to hope for their children’s future?
This is not rocket science. This is such basic common sense, it is painfully obvious. The commandos attracted to join al Quaeda and similar terrorist groups come from a wide variety of nations, races and languages, throughout the world. Almost always they come from origins of poverty, illiteracy, oppression and joblessness.
Are we really fighting terrorism?
Given that terrorism, like poverty, has “root causes” in known circumstances – social, political, economic and psychological - it is an obvious conclusion that “fighting terrorism” using only guns and armies is like “fighting poverty” only with food shipments and blankets. Killing a few terrorists does not stop terrorism any more than feeding a few hungry people has ever stopped poverty.
There are places in the world where poverty has been ameliorated or corrected, such as the well-known and highly successful dairy cooperatives in India. Wherever this has happened it happened because of a concerted effort – almost always a coalition of the local victims together with committed friends from the outside who educate, guide and assist. And it has always happened because root causes of poverty were effectively identified, addressed and overcome. Anyone who has worked internationally for social change knows this to be a fact.
So where in the world today is the US Government either circumventing bullets or going beyond bullets to reach the imagination and the yearning of the people? Where are we in our “war on terrorism” identifying, addressing and overcoming the root causes of terrorism? Where are we committed and effective in “freeing people from terrorism” by ensuring that they have justice, education, health care, safe water, enough food, a stable society, industrial development, agricultural productivity, jobs, and personal safety? Can you name even one place where the U S Government is actually doing this, comprehensively, systematically and effectively?
Fighting terrorism – reactively or proactively?
Americans tend to be reactive rather than proactive about social problems. A simple example is the medical industry, which builds ever more luxurious hospitals and creates ever more expensive disease-treatment capabilities. Yet we are repeatedly told that we obese and lethargic Americans as a whole have the finest medical facilities and the poorest health of any industrialized nation. We have excellent reactive facilities for treating our dis-ease; but the corollary of knowing and practicing good nutrition and seeking to maintain good personal health is hardly the national norm.
It appears that our “War on Terrorism” follows this American pattern of reacting to existing problems, but not anticipating future problems and taking steps now to avoid or minimize them. Amidst extensive lying by our national leaders, we have launched an army on a weak, defenseless country in a “pre-emptive strike” against terror. We have violated our own laws and constitution in jailing persons without charges and without legal representation. We have blatantly violated international protocol on the treatment of prisoners. (Were the tables turned, we would be screaming for revenge against such inhumanity.) We have made travel within our own nation a major inconvenience. And we have bankrupted virtually every social program that would soften the hardships of life for children, the poor, the elderly and the disabled in our own national family.
We have plenty of reactions to terrorism. All of this has been done in the name of the “War on Terrorism.” Yet, have we begun addressing the factors that cause terrorism to happen?
There is no evidence that our anti-terrorism measures – warranted or not – do anything to reduce the likelihood of future terrorism against us. Angry young men still grow up in places of radical injustice, destitution, grinding poverty, political and economic oppression, with no hope of getting educated, getting jobs or getting out. As their frustration and hopelessness grow, they become cannon fodder for those who would manipulate them.
It is widely accepted throughout the world that the war in Iraq has resulted in a sharp increase in anti-US rage throughout the Muslim world. Concurrently, there is a sharp increase in new recruits to al Quaeda. As a mechanism for reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism, the Iraq War is a failure.
Can you identify a significant, identifiable US Government program committed to changing this reality – a program that would actually decrease the likelihood of future terrorist attacks? Even the programs that might appear thus committed are a sham. Not long ago, Congress approved an additional $87 billion – a staggering sum! – for the War on Terrorism. Yet, of this amount only $18 billion was earmarked for rebuilding post-war Iraq. Of that $18 billion, very little has actually been spent.
Interestingly, no one person or government department seems to know just how much has actually been spent. It appears there is no reliable method of tracking the funds. Experts estimate that anywhere from $400 million to $1.9 billion has actually been spent – ten per cent or less of the $18 billion that was promised. Moreover, approximately a third of all rebuilding expenses has gone to investment insurance and paramilitary security forces to protect business operations in Iraq.
This means that of the $400 million - $1.9 billion, the actual benefit to Iraq is somewhere between $250 million and $1.2 billion – a far cry from the loudly proclaimed $18 billion. On top of that, with almost all the contracts being let to American companies (in clear violation of international law), the bulk of the money has actually been spent in America – American salaries, American technology, American equipment, American commodities, etc.
Of the $18 billion promised to assist in rebuilding Iraq, only a tiny trickle has actually been spent in Iraq or created sustainable benefit for Iraqis. In short, Iraq is not being rebuilt. Vast sums were promised; a fraction of that has been spent; but Iraq is benefiting very little. And Americans wonder why Iraqis do not appreciate us more?
If we are not taking effective steps to decrease terrorism, what then do we project for America’s children? Fewer civil rights at home? Still more poverty as our nation’s treasury is bankrupted for ineffective wars on supposed terrorist targets? More government control of our news media? More restrictions on the freedom to travel?
The “War on Terror” notwithstanding, if we do not do something to address the horrible inequities and suffering of people in the terrorist-breeding provinces of the world, how is it likely ever to end?
Is it an “impossible dream”?
I was raised not only to respect and love my country, but also to be willing to be honestly critical of her when she fell short of her own purpose and potential, and to work constructively with her to improve and to accomplish more and more goodness – for Americans and for the world. Perhaps by today’s measure that seems naive. Maybe I’m just one more American who caught a utopian dream in the 1960s and doesn’t want to see it die?
Nevertheless, I am as committed to America today as I was then. I am unapologetically blunt in my criticism and fervent in my yearning for America to regain her destiny as a nation that leads others by example, with decency, fairness, courage, perseverance, and tolerance. It is painful to me that our government is so pain-making in the world. I am ashamed that the majority of the world, including our long-standing friends and allies, consider the American president to be a greater threat to world peace than is Osama bin Laden.
I do not ask the impossible. All that I have written here is known and obvious. We have been working globally for decades on addressing the root causes of poverty. We understand this. I believe it is the same process for dealing with terrorism – especially since poverty itself is a key ingredient in the spawning of terrorism and terrorists.
I recently talked about this to a group of middle schoolers. Barely into their teens, they immediately grasped what I was saying. So why does our national government refuse to see this?
A spiritual approach to terrorism
Religion is a belief system - often a compilation of dogma, doctrine, do’s and don’ts. Spirituality is a value system – about values rather than proscriptions. Those values that honor life, enhance goodness, nurture caring relationships among people and foster peace – these are truly spiritual values. Though religions may adhere to these values, these values are not the property of any one religion. They truly belong to us all. That is the nature of spirit: it transcends religions, cultures, races, and all other human-made divisions.
When I was a young man, a British economist, E. F. Schumacher, wrote a book that challenged basic economic assumptions. Small is Beautiful was a presentation of “economics as though people mattered.” Rather than focus on the “big picture” of national policy, balance of payments, market forces, and the like, Schumacher assessed the value of economic theory and practice by how it impacted the lives of ordinary people. It was a radical idea, that not only our national policies but our very philosophies of wealth should begin with a value system that placed emphasis on ordinary human beings.
For this focus - not on ideas, procedures, theories or policies, but rather a focus on values - I have always thought of Schumacher’s book as being spiritual in nature. His was a curious approach – to study economic forces not to see how they worked or how well they worked, but for whom they worked, and how we all benefit.
Suppose we were to address terrorism in the world today using such a simple spiritual approach as that. What values might guide us? In fairness, just as starving people need to be fed even while we are sorting out how they came to be starving and what might be done about it, so also a world under attack from terrorists needs to take reasonable steps to protect itself and/or disable the terrorists’ ability to recruit followers and accomplish their goals. But a simply militaristic defense has never been adequate to dissuade oppressed and hopeless people from turning to terrorism.
In combating terrorism, using military force alone is like using food to fight hunger. It may be justified under some circumstances, but by itself it is never enough. You can feed this person or kill that one; but there will always be more and more and more of them, for the circumstances that spawn poverty and terrorism are not fazed by whom you feed or kill.
Such an approach is reactive, not proactive. It addresses a current problem of a societal disease; it doesn’t anticipate the problem and take the necessary steps to foster societal health. For individual health or for the health of the whole human race, we need to be proactive.
A proactive approach to abolishing terror will require far greater wisdom and humility than our national leaders are currently demonstrating. A proactive approach to abolishing terror will require working constructively to address oppression, injustice, poverty and discrimination wherever it is found, for these are truly the root causes of terror.
If we are truly committed to creating an America in which our children and grand-children can live lives free of terror, then we must start now to use our spiritual wisdom together with our national capacity for goodness. The day we choose this, we will discover we have many allies, both in the flesh and most certainly in spirit.
Danger and opportunity. Together and equal.
We are in a time of crisis and we are afraid. We long to feel safe, to live our lives in peace. We know that peace for our children can never be certain until the children of Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so many other places also have peace.
I am reminded of two Chinese characters. In Chinese calligraphy, the symbol for “crisis” is made up of two other symbols: one is “danger,” the other is “opportunity.” Similarly, the symbol for “peace” is made up of the characters for “together” and “equal.” Think about that.
Truly today we face danger. We also face an opportunity to become the America that the rest of the world still dares to hope we might be. To address the danger, we have used our military, sacrificing thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis to injury and death. Yet there is no evidence that America has begun to address the opportunity we face.
If we would have peace in our land, peace for our posterity, we will have to learn to live together and peacefully with all our human neighbors. When their peace is taken away by ignorance, oppression and injustice, our peace is threatened.
Humans living together with equality brings us peace. Inequality brings us conflict. It's as simple as that. It always has been. We can, if we so choose, commit ourselves to creating for our neighbors a kind of equality with us – a land in which they live in peace with themselves and with us – lands of justice, mercy, hope, enough food, safe homes, good health, opportunities, jobs, security, economic health, friendships with other nations and cultures, and – no doubt – laughter instead of tears.
The time has come for America to act as though we truly believe it when we say, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal . . .” When we not only recite but truly live this fundamental American value, then our global togetherness can be met with equality. Therein lies the path to the peace we crave.
Therein lies the solution to a “War on Terrorism.”