Terrorists are made, not born

Terrorists are made, not born
Indiscriminate bombing? Dirty tricks? They're part of the problem, not the solution.

Sept. 12, 2001 | "How much anger can prompt a group of people to do this?" asked my friend David Handschuh, a New York Daily News photographer, after firefighters pulled him, legs shattered, from the rubble at the World Trade Center.

With President Bush talking of war and "a monumental struggle between good and evil," motivation may seem beside the point. But David's anguished query is the right one, and one we ignore at our peril: What do we make of a rage so deep that it could prompt a few individuals to convert box-cutters, pilots' licenses and airline schedules into weapons of mass destruction?

For now, with the attackers still officially unidentified, the only thing that can be responsibly said is that terrorist killers are made, not born. Call it blowback, call it payback -- but whichever part of the world these sadistic attacks emanated from, it is someplace where people have long acquaintance with body counts and death raining down from the sky.

Handschuch's question is even more relevant because, as the bodies and survivors are finally recovered, the mute bewilderment and confusion will turn into anger of our own. That is natural. But what contours will that rage take as it emerges in Washington and around the country?

President Bush read the words "a quiet, unyielding anger" from his teleprompter Tuesday night. But hours earlier, even as Air Force One scrambled the unseen president's entourage from airbase to airbase to bunker, something different was already evident.

Already, certain Washington hands and select media mouthpieces were playing an alarming blame game, seeking to channel public anger into their long-favored favored projects. On ABC, former Secretary of State James Baker blamed the whole thing on the Church Committee -- the U.S. Senate inquiry that 20 years ago exposed the long history of CIA manipulation of foreign governments and subsidizing of torture. "In terms of intelligence, we unilaterally disarmed," Baker insisted, declaring it time return for a return to the days of unaccountable "dirty business."

He seems to have forgotten just how deeply American embroilment in dirty business -- coups, assassinations, military regimes -- contributed to hatred of the U.S. (Today's CIA, let it be noted, profoundly objects to this yearning by nostalgic old Cold War hands: Earlier this year I attended a conference on terrorism at which Bill Harlow, the CIA's director of public affairs, bluntly said that the intelligence community manages to recruit any sources it desires under current rules.) A few hours later, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger called on the U.S. to flatten Kabul: "We've got to be somewhat irrational in our response. Blow their capital from under them."

Just how effective would the Baker-Eagleburger strike-hard policy be in quelling the terrorist threat? Look at the West Bank, where the cycle of vengeance and victimization gets further cemented into the foundation of daily life with each new home demolition and cafe bombing.

This is no time for lectures; in these first hours and days all of us are thinking about the people who escaped, or who didn't. But with the clamor for aggressive and massive military action already beginning, it's essential to point out just how many of the world's more baleful terrorists and mass murderers were born precisely from the kind of operations now advocated by the bomb-and-assassinate crowd.

None of this diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrators of this week's attack, or diminishes the need to bring the full force of domestic and international law to bear. But it should serve as a warning to our leaders that assuaging the public's grief with B-52 strikes will reap its own unforeseeable whirlwind. "Blow Kabul from under them?" You might as well hand out box-cutters and directions to Kennedy Airport to every kid in Afghanistan unto the third generation.

And on the domestic front, while comparisons to Pearl Harbor are inevitable, the comments of some politicians Tuesday were a chilly reminder of the worst panic-driven excess of the Second World War: the internment of Japanese-Americans in prison camps. No one was going quite that far. But Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., called for closing the nation's borders. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., propose greatly expanding the FBI's surveillance powers -- powers that already are the broadest in American history. Not that there is a shred of evidence that the cold, disciplined commandos who so carefully perpetrated these ghastly attacks chatted about their plans over cellphones, or that dozens of terrorist teams are creeping in from Vancouver.

What is striking, in fact, is the raging irrelevance of the extreme measures both military and legal authorities proposed in the last 24 hours. "The responses for which support is being mobilized are not going to address the true character of this challenge," says professor Richard Falk of Princeton, a foreign policy scholar who has thought long and hard about the reconfigured world order. "This is the first war for which there is no military solution. And without a military solution our leaders lack the imagination to understand what is happening and what to do."

One former high-ranking federal emergency official and terrorism response expert described to me a recent simulated terrorism exercise that featured role-playing by such Washington luminaries as Sam Nunn and David Gergen. The participants were given an imaginary scenario involving the deliberate release of smallpox. This observer was struck how in the "outbreak's" early phases, when small measures could have made the simulated events more manageable, the players could not settle on a course of action. Later -- when in a real epidemic it would have been far too late -- they resorted to draconian measures. In the all-too-real scenario now playing out in Washington, draconian measures -- political, legal and military -- seem to have similar appeal.

The war has indeed come home. But I don't mean the war on terrorism, a phrase repeated endlessly and meaninglessly on television Tuesday night. Nor do I mean, in any narrow sense, the fanatic war of whoever it was who attacked lower Manhattan. What has come home, on an unimaginable scale and with inconceivable speed, is a vicious cycle of victimhood and revenge -- a bitter, confusing jumble of shock, grief, fear.

"How much anger can prompt a group of people to do this?" That is the question to ask -- of ourselves as well as of our attackers.

Pol Pot? Rode to power after formerly neutral and stable Cambodia was flattened by American bombs. The Taliban? Detritus of the anti-Soviet Afghan guerrilla movement financed and trained by the U.S. Chechnya guerrillas? Russia's own private blowback.

None of this diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrators of this week's attack, or diminishes the need to bring the full force of domestic and international law to bear. But it should serve as a warning to our leaders that assuaging the public's grief with B-52 strikes will reap its own unforeseeable whirlwind. "Blow Kabul from under them?" You might as well hand out box-cutters and directions to Kennedy Airport to every kid in Afghanistan unto the third generation.

Pol Pot? Rode to power after formerly neutral and stable Cambodia was flattened by American bombs.

The conventional leftie a**hole explanation of Pol Pot.

And they always forget to mention that he first came to power in 1962, and then the KR (which he led) took control of the country a full two years after the U.S. had evacuated SE Asia. Pol Pot then spent the next four years (1975-1979) murdering 25 percent of his own countrymen, while maintaining one - count it - one telephone line, which was wired directly to Beijing.

Pol Pot and his murderous followers were/are psychopath Maoists, and their rise and certainly their actions were designed precisely to emulate (and in fact to outperform) Chairman Mao, their idol.

America had zero to do with the rise or actions of Pol Pot.

From one biography, which is as accurate as anything else I've ever read or heard:

"In 1949, at age 20, he traveled to Paris on a scholarship to study radio electronics but became absorbed in Marxism and neglected his studies. He lost his scholarship and returned to Cambodia in 1953 and joined the underground Communist movement. The following year, Cambodia achieved full independence from France and was then ruled by a royal monarchy."

"By 1962, Pol Pot had become leader of the Cambodian Communist Party and was forced to flee into the jungle to escape the wrath of Prince Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia. In the jungle, Pol Pot formed an armed resistance movement that became known as the Khmer Rouge (Red Cambodians) and waged a guerrilla war against Sihanouk's government."

The United States had a miniscule presence in SE Asia in 1963/63. Pol Pot was a Maoist fanatic from the outset.

In your frenzied imagination Salon could not exist.
It does and it will continue if enough people are willing to support such drivel as this article.

No, despite the author's best efforts, this was not an act of anger.
It was a cold act of hatred. Hatred based on a relegion that speaks of hospitality and mercy at the same time it teaches superiority over others and a literal right to murder non-believers.

For reasons that will always be hidden in self righteous claims and denials these animals killed - murdered - upwards of 20,000 Americans.
In cold blood and on television.

I don't care about collateral damage in any half crazed pretend country that would support this kind of action.
I believe that if we do not act in some manner that they understand they will be back. Often.
You or I could be in the wrong place next time - even the idiot who wrote the story for Salon. I don't even wish that on him.

On the other side of this story - it is a perfect time to demand that our policies in the Balkans be reassessed, reversed, and made right.

I don't agree - I think there is a genetic component behind psychotic zealotry of all types.... and in particular I think it has been selected for in many populations where crazy warriors is an asset to survival.

This makes sense to me.

Dogs are born with certain dispositions. Training can change them, but often they are raised with other dogs with the same dispositions as they have. The environment just encourages the inborn disposition even more.

I am NOT saying Muslims are dogs. I AM saying each human individual is born with a certain disposition and his upbringing is often in an environment filled with very similar people who nurture that disposition. A government can strengthen these tendencies even more by promoting them as being "good for society."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.