Friday, March 16, 2007

If You Can't Walk The Walk

As you might have gathered, I've discovered an entertaining new hobby: Scouring government reports for egregious examples of idiocy and/or hypocrisy. Happily, there's no shortage of either.

To be fair, though, there are also plenty of examples of sound reasoning and insightful analysis. Take the most recent (although obviously dated) National Security Strategy issued by the Bush administration in February 2006. There's a pretty solid rundown of some of the myths and realities surrounding the causes of terrorism:

To wage this battle of ideas effectively, we must be clear-eyed about what does and does not give rise to terrorism:

• Terrorism is not the inevitable by-product of poverty...
• Terrorism is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq...
• Terrorism is not simply a result of Israeli-Palestinian issues...
• Terrorism is not simply a response to our efforts to prevent terror attacks... Indeed, the terrorists are emboldened more by perceptions of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve...

The terrorism we confront today springs from:

• Political alienation...
• Grievances that can be blamed on others. The failures the terrorists feel and see are blamed on others, and on perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes distant past...
• Sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories...
• An ideology that justifies murder. Terrorism ultimately depends upon the appeal of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of innocents...

I'd quibble a bit with bit about terrorists being "...emboldened more by perceptions of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve...": The Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism over the past forty years proves conclusively that the target's posture has little to no bearing on the terrorist's boldness. But I can live with the rest. The problem arises in the paragraph that follows:

Defeating terrorism in the long run requires that each of these factors be addressed. The genius of democracy is that it provides a counter to each.

• In place of alienation, democracy offers an ownership stake in society, a chance to shape one’s own future.
• In place of festering grievances, democracy offers the rule of law, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the habits of advancing interests through compromise.
• In place of a culture of conspiracy and misinformation, democracy offers freedom of speech, independent media, and the marketplace of ideas, which can expose and discredit falsehoods, prejudices, and dishonest propaganda.
• In place of an ideology that justifies murder, democracy offers a respect for human dignity that abhors the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. (Emphasis added.)

Don't get me wrong, I am not advancing a moral equivalency argument, or claiming that America is anywhere near becoming a police state. But the hypocrisy needle obviously hits the red when you've got the Bush administration vaunting the benefits of:

1. The rule of law;
2. The peaceful resolution of disputes;
3. Compromise;
4. And information transparency to counter conspiracy and misinformation.
   

I understand that these kinds of documents function largely as propaganda devices. But propaganda is very rarely persuasive in the face of evidence to the contrary. Especially when directed at popular opinion that is overtly skeptical, if not hostile, to the propaganists, both of which are now the case among the Islamic world, both Arab and Asian. If the War on Terrorism is really a war of ideas, as the Bush administration (rightly) claims, then consistency matters.

Posted by Judah in:  Global War On Terror   

Comments (0)

e-mail  |  del.icio.us  |  digg