The Informationist

The Terrorist in the Mirror

By all reports, we are about to embark on a lengthy battle against a potent political philosophy: the belief that the long-term frustration of deeply held beliefs justifies violence against civilians. This philosophy exists at the fringe of virtually every political movement in every part of the world—including this one. We can only defeat it if the non-violent mainstream of each political movement feels motivated to curb its own extremists. We can start by looking in the mirror.

Americans are quite fortunate in this respect. Our violent lunatics tend to dwell on small and apparently manageable fringes. While no mainstream organization actually condones these fringes, many of us tend to view at least some extremism sympathetically, as “misguided,” “overzealous,” or simply “counterproductive.” These attitudes give aid and comfort to the enemy, and will preclude a successful anti-terrorist campaign. It’s easy to condemn violence in the name of a cause you oppose. The challenge is to be equally harsh on extremists who commit violence in the name of a cause you support.

Let’s start by drawing a few lines. Whether you love them or hate them, the following groups are not terrorists:

Environmental activists who insist that corporate activities inflict irreparable damage on the environment.
Pro-Life activists who demonstrate peacefully outside abortion clinics.
NRA members who believe that the government has no right to restrict gun ownership.
Palestinians who believe that Israel has denied them their legitimate right to self-determination.
West Bank settlers who believe that they are living on land given by God to Abraham.
Muslims who believe that the presence of non-believers near their holy cities is an affront to Allah.

The following allied groups, on the other hand, all see violence as a viable way to further their political beliefs. They have crossed the line into terrorism:

Environmental activists who sabotage offensive corporate operations.
Pro-Life activists who advocate the murder of abortion doctors.
Militias who defend their compounds against government incursions with advanced weaponry and extreme force.
Palestinians who express their anger by attacking Jewish civilians.
West Bank settlers who express their anger by attacking Arab civilians.
Muslims who believe that the presence of Americans in the Arabian Peninsula justifies violence against American targets.

Some of these latter groups will be harder to squelch than others. The best place to start, however, is always at home.

Mainstream groups must be pushed to police their own causes, and to destroy the viability of their terrorist “allies.” The knee-jerk approach to this goal, harassing the mainstream as well as the extremes, is unlikely to work. Our strategic objective in this war must be to prove that violence is counterproductive to whatever cause you espouse. Violence committed in the name of the pro-life movement must expand abortion rights. Violence committed to support the environment must redound to the benefit of corporate despoilers. Few mainstream movements will retain sympathy for their extremists after experiencing such setbacks.

Will Democrats support legislation decertifying unions whose demonstrations become violent, or developing federal insurance programs to compensate corporate victims of ecoterrorism? Will Republicans provide ample federal funds to rebuild and/or to increase security at abortion clinics plagued by violent protestors, or support legislation banning paramilitary hardware favored by militias? Will both parties push for the full and effective enforcement of all such laws?

We all know what the answers to these questions would have been two weeks ago. Today we can be less certain—and more hopeful. Tragedy often promotes self-reflection. Perhaps it will embolden our political leaders to take some risks. After all, if John Ashcroft is afraid of fallout from the pro-life movement, and Dick Gephardt is afraid of angering organized labor, can we really expect Ariel Sharon to uproot settlers, Yasser Arafat to quash Hamas, or Pervez Musharraf to challenge Al Qaeda?

American leadership in the war against terrorism is needed in more ways than one. We can begin the home front war today. If our leaders have the strength to challenge the terrorists in the mirror we can lead this war in the finest way possible—by example. The time has come to stop raging and to start acting.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 09/17 at 04:32 PM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies