Suggested Discussion Outline

[johnkarls]

.
SUGGESTED DISCUSSION OUTLINE

Editorial Note = for the sake of brevity the term “terrorist” will be employed to describe an individual who commits an act that would immediately be perceived as illegal (e.g., murder) in the absence of a claimed political justification.


*****
A. Brief Intro
*****

Our author makes a heart-rending case for tribal societies which remain on “the periphery” (aka mountains and deserts) and which are being eradicated by their central governments, often with tactics that our author claims (p. 354) are “genocide” as defined in Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

*****
B. U.S. Drone Policy
*****

Whether or not we accept our author’s thesis, two issues for the U.S. must still be decided. As framed at the end of the Q&A’s contained in our 6/29/2013 newsletter (and posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org), they are:

Question 22

Is our author right that the collateral damage caused by President Obama's drone policy has vastly increased (rather than diminished as President Obama claims) the ranks of Islamic radical terrorists (similarly to how U.S. military tactics in Vietnam increased the ranks of Vietnamese opposed to the South Vietnam government)?

[Answer 22 = What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!]

Question 23

If it is still necessary in today's world to keep a close eye on radical Islamic terrorists (please see Q&A-6), wouldn't it be a lot smarter to return to the old capture-and-interrogate-suspects policy since collateral damage could be minimized and responsibility for disappearances often avoided?

[Answer 23 = What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!]

*****
C. Implications of Our Author’s Main Thesis for Anti-Terrorism (putting aside, for the moment, whether they are employed by the U.S. or by the central government of the tribes involved)
*****

In stating his thesis, our author makes quite a few arguments (which he would probably view as statements of fact) that provoke questions which we should tackle to the extent we have time, for example:

On pp. 338-340, he claims that terrorism can be solved using the recipe for his oft-cited success in 1986 with “dacoits” (an armed criminal gang which had been engaging in kidnappings for ransom, much like modern-day Somali pirates) by pursuing them to their home area and then dealing with their tribal elders. Questions =

1. Yes, it would probably be nice to deal with tribal elders BEFORE members of their tribes commit terrorist acts, but in our author’s example the kidnapping already took place and could easily have ended in disaster before a resolution with the tribal elders was negotiated.

2. Yes, it was nice to deal with the tribal elders of the kidnappers, but the resolution reached with them was limited to the release of the victim (who might already have been killed if the motive had not been ransom) and not the punishment of the kidnappers. [Our author does make the claim that further kidnappings were discouraged by the prospect of being pursued and ultimately being forced to release victims at no profit.]

3. Yes, it was nice to deal with the tribal elders because they recognized that kidnapping for profit was improper, but what about all of the myriad excuses which will be claimed for acts which the U.S. or central governments would call terror, and on whose validity the tribes will disagree with the U.S. and the central governments?

*****
D. Implications of Our Author’s Main Thesis for U.S. Foreign Policy
*****

1. To the extent that terrorists are motivated by propaganda that is not true, what is the obligation (if any) of the U.S. to educate the terrorists before they strike?

2. To the extent that terrorists are motivated by grievances that are valid, must the U.S. and the central governments submit to whatever punishment the terrorists decide to dish out? What if the punishments of the terrorists affect innocent people?

3. Can the U.S. act as “the policeman of the world”? Does the U.S. have jurisdiction to accept and adjudicate the grievances of tribes or other minorities within another sovereign country? And if the answer is, for example, that such grievances are the province of the International Criminal Court, aren’t the many well-publicized lengthy struggles of the ICC to obtain custody of specific war criminals (many unsuccessful) a cause for pessimism? Or, for internationalists, should the ICC be provided with military forces in order to make it effective? And even for internationalists, isn’t it sobering to realize that the ICC has no jurisdiction over acts committed within a country that has not agreed to the Treaty of Rome establishing the ICC unless the U.N. Security Council decides to confer such jurisdiction (which is how the ICC acquired jurisdiction over war crimes in Bosnia)? [And we all know how frustrating it is to get the U.N. Security Council to agree on anything when each of its 5 Permanent Members has a veto.]

4. What can be done to provide tribes with counter-propaganda so that at least the terrorist acts that are based on incorrect information have a chance of being prevented? Whose responsibility is this?

5. Should we, in the name of our War on Terrorism, be giving a “free pass” to all of the world’s central governments to repress and eradicate their minority populations?

6. Should we follow many of the world’s central governments in “throwing in the towel” and eradicating their minority populations?

Editorial Notes Vis-à-vis Q-6:

On p. 333, our author states that former U.K. Labor-Party Defense Minister, Lord Gilbert, proposed in a speech given to the U.K. House of Lords in November 2012, exterminating tribes with neutron bombs.

For the uninitiated, neutron bombs have a high ratio of radiation to the force of the atomic blast for the express purpose of killing human beings and other animals, while preserving buildings and other structures.

Baron John William Gilbert was U.K. Defense Minister 1976-1979 under Labor Prime Minister, James Callaghan. However, he also served as U.K. Minister for Defense Procurement 1997-1999 under Labor Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Lord Gilbert passed away last month.