Subtext to Terror

One of the things that makes terrorism so disturbing is not merely the horrific violence that it generates, or the fanatic zeal that it expresses, but the notion that such abhorrent actions are much more likely than not, the product of deductive reasoning

By ALLEN GABORRO
January 2002

No one can deny that war is a dreadfully cruel undertaking. But just as nonviolent alternatives are always more desirable, we must give credit where credit is due. War can achieve a great deal when it is implemented on an extensive and energetic scale, a recent historical example of this being the 1990 Gulf War. Then, the United States, in employing overwhelming military force, soundly defeated Saddam Hussein's invading legions and drove them out of the tiny oil emirate of Kuwait. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, there are two equally intense military campaigns taking place, this time with the goal of eradicating terrorism at their core. The first campaign being the U.S.-led attacks in Afghanistan, the second involving the Philippine government's struggle in Mindanao.

The American and Philippine governments, the respective sponsors of these two campaigns, are confident that they will eventually attain results similar to what was seen in the Gulf War: the emasculation, if not outright annihilation, of a dangerous adversary -- the Al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia in the case of Afghanistan, and the Abu Sayyaf extremist group in the case of the Philippines. With the prospect of major military victories in the offing, the United States and its allies, along with the Philippines, hope to once and for all destroy terrorism as an entity that can gravely threaten the safety and security of their all-too vulnerable societies.

Military might however, has its limits; no matter how vigorously it is exercised, no matter how long it is waged, sheer military force cannot in and of itself eliminate the root causes of terrorism, which are very complex and profound. This is certainly the situation when it comes to the Al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf. Before going into the motivations of those groups though, it must be stated that it is wrong to believe that terrorism emerges from some kind of nihilistic, irrational vacuum; terrorists quite the opposite, rather than existing in an amorphous universe of utter lunacy with no beginning and no end, depend on a rhyme and a reason for what they are trying to accomplish. Terrorists, unbeknownst to those who label them simplistically as "madmen," develop explicit convictions about the world based on arguments that are frightening in their rationality and calculation, and turn those arguments into uncompromising justifications for their actions.

Of course it is unsettling to think that cogent viewpoints constructed within a rationalist paradigm are what encourages a person to willingly fly a jet airliner into a building, to literally wrap himself or herself in explosives and detonate them in a crowd of people, or to mutilate the bodies of their hostages after having already murdered them. But that is exactly one of the things that makes terrorism so disturbing: it is not merely the horrific violence that it generates, or the fanatic zeal that it expresses, but the notion that such abhorrent actions are much more likely than not, the product of deductive reasoning.

Going on that premise, it should not be beyond our comprehension that the seemingly demented activities of Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network, and the Abu Sayyaf are in fact, spiteful but logical responses to the social, economic, and political repression that has been perpetrated for decades upon the Muslim populace they originated from. As civilized individuals we pronounce ourselves to be immune to such deep-seated malevolence, yet all of us have to wonder if we too would not have felt the same anger, the same sense of indignation, the same unquenchable desire for revenge that these terrorists and their followers feel, had the same injustice, violence, and repression been imposed on our people, on our loved ones, on our country, indeed on our very person.

In saying that we should understand what these terrorists are calling for is not to be mistaken for bestowing praise or apology on their deeds. On the contrary, the actions of terrorists are deserving of nothing less than total condemnation. But while we rightfully denounce the conduct of the Al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf, should we not also be taking to task the policies that fomented so much hatred in the first place amongst their leaders and members?

Osama Bin Laden's main raison d'etre, now that the Soviet Marxism has collapsed, are the policies of the United States on the Middle East and the Muslim nations that reside in that region. Bin Laden virulently rails against several U.S. policy decisions: what he sees as America's conspiratorial collusion with Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; its duplicitous support of dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries; its economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein that are devastating the Iraqi people; the "infidel" presence of American soldiers in the Islamic holy lands of Saudi Arabia, intended, according to Bin Laden, to ensure the continued Western exploitation of Saudi oil and the protection of the kingdom's corrupt ruling family.

The Abu Sayyaf's grievances are perhaps not as geopolitically significant as Osama Bin Laden's are, relatively speaking for their implications apply principally to a smaller, more localized arena Ñ- the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines. However, the conditions that spawned the Abu Sayyaf mirrors much of the plight of the wider Muslim world. True, the Abu Sayyaf has deteriorated into a vicious, undisciplined bandit grouping with little, if any, early ideological moorings. At this point, the Abu Sayyaf's asserted aims are probably nothing more than a legitimizing disguise for its criminal behavior. Nevertheless, we must consider what the group claims it is at least ostensibly fighting for. Time and time again the Abu Sayyaf have professed that it champions the rights and the welfare of Mindanao's Muslims, tragic victims of the Filipino government's repressive policies and of Filipino Christian hegemony.

Whatever the true, underlying motives of the Abu Sayyaf are nowadays, it must be made clear that the group has not always been a horde of indiscriminate, bloodthirsty outlaws, primarily concerned with profiting monetarily from their marauding ways. The Abu Sayyaf once advanced a semi-structured ideology of extreme Muslim nationalism as a reaction to past efforts by Filipino Christian civilians and political leaders to confiscate Muslim lands, to mute Muslims' political voice, and to eradicate Islamic culture. As Filipino Muslims in the south continue to suffer subjugation, neglect, and deprivation in the grip of Christian and governmental domination, the Abu Sayyaf only finds more inspiration and impetus to resort to violence.

Simply put, the group's kidnappings, bombings, and executions will not be solved by military action alone. These activities will be stopped only when the source of the social, political, and economic discontent that gives rise to them is eliminated. That means granting the Muslims of Mindanao greater political enfranchisement, increased financial aid for poverty-alleviating programs and for the creation of viable economic opportunities, and solid guarantees for the protection of their land, religion, and culture.

Strangely in a way, even in the wake of some of the worst crimes against humanity, one can detect a mortal, almost subconscious longing that reverberates under the surface of terrorist ideologies. Anyone living in a free society can easily identify with it, for it is the yearning for the human ideals of freedom, equality, and prosperity. At first glance, terrorists appear to be working at reversing these values. But in reality, the terrorists kill innocents because they, and the people they claim to represent, have been denied these very same ideals. Deprived of these rights while enviously, it can be said, watching them thrive in other countries, terrorists become driven by what Friederich Nietzsche referred to as "resentment": an acute sensitivity to perceived humiliations and oppressions which induce, according to him, "submerged hatred" and the "vengefulness of the impotent." Resentment furthermore, compels the offended party into what Nietzsche said was an "act of most spiritual revenge."

George W. Bush only deceives his audiences when he declares the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to be an endeavor to crush America's democratic way of life, something that those in repressed societies can only dream of. The very denial of freedom, equality, and opportunity in the pursuit of happiness, is what forms the subtext of the terrorist actions, and until we understand that, we will never be rid of the scourge of terrorism.

Allen Gaborro is a freelance writer based in San Francisco, California. Permission to reprint granted by the editors of bulatlat.com which originally ran this essay.