This is on everyone’s mind since 9/11. I can understand that. What I am confused at is the misunderstandings of that practice. Perhaps President Reagan said it best when he told the American people that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter. In order to understand and defeat such an opponent, we must know not only our feelings about the practice but also theirs. In the Revolutionary War, Americans, especially irregulars like Marion, might have been considered terrorists by the British. In fact the tendency of some American units to fire from cover and not take line and column positions on the battlefield, was considered cowardly and savage. Tarleton, cavalry leader for Cornwallis, adopted similar and more excessive tactics and earned criticism from Americans.

From that time to the present, America has fought against, enlisted and aided terrorists. Even by the rules we were ready to adopt in W.W.II, out of uniform troops and some OSS operations could have been defined as terrorism, not to mention the fire bombings. State terrorism, a problem we dealt with well into the 1990s, was, and still is, a tool of policy of governments, including our own. The Soviet-Afghanistan War, supposed birthplace of Al Queda, saw America backing Afghan rebels or terrorists against Soviet regular and special forces. It also saw Soviet terrorist tactics used against the Afghan people.

Realistic appraisal of the practice does not indicate any lessening of the horror of 9/11, it simply allows us better to understand and defeat the enemy. To understand how the forces of nationalism, patriotism and religious belief can be subverted to the purposes of the terrorists does not lend legitimacy to their cause nor does it indicate affinity with their purpose. If we refuse to understand the thinking of the enemy, we refuse to place in our arsenal every weapon we may need to destroy them. In our first war, Tarleton showed how even the British adopted actions similar to ours in order to defeat us. Thank God there were not more like him or we might still be a Crown Colony.

Fighting an enemy who attacks then fades away, holds an area yet deserts it when opposing forces appear, and strikes only when numbers or circumstance are favorable, is a daunting task. Even moreso when that enemy strikes in our homeland and is willing to commit suicide to do so. It creates fear, frustration and confusion. And those circumstances may cause us to strike out blindly and without full thought. It becomes as though you are a person struck in a pitch-black room and you begin flailing about so you can keep from being struck again. You may get lucky, connecting with the one who struck you, most likely you will not, but you may hit those who had no previous reason to bear you ill. It is better to shed some light about the place, even if all the apparent assailants simply sit on their hands when the light comes on, at least you will be ready to take aim if any should move to strike again.

And when you have turned on that light, is it not good to turn to your own self and check your own capabilities as you watch for assault? It has confused me that the American people have not been given a structure with which to guard themselves. We did this in W.W.II, and any schhoolkid could have told you “loose lips sink ships” and what were the geopolitics that the Nazi menace was practicing. The ideas of lebensraum and heartland were the subject of short films and documentaries that accompanied Clark Gable and John Wayne on myriad movie-screens across America. Even organized crime syndicates were enlisted in the effort, keeping eyes on our ports to keep them free of saboteurs. We knew we were in a fight to the death and needed all Americans to rally. And we appreciated that in such a battle, victory only comes when Americans stand together.

Some have suggested the return of a Home guard, volunteers who aid police and intelligence agencies. Could a terrorist organization, faced with nightly watchmen and women, with expanded citizen-watch groups and police and intelligence agencies bolstered by hundreds of thousands of volunteers, succeed? I don’t know, perhaps it is worth the try. Might it not be wise to have on hand hundreds of thousands of Americans who have submitted to voluntary background checks and some level of training in security, disaster aid and even intelligence gathering? Might that not give us the manpower and emergency human resources that could be depended upon in dire circumstance?
Americans have never been hesitant to respond. Even in the Civil War, it was that innate sense of American solidarity on both sides, that caused such high casualties, the most of any war we ever fought. Some may have been misguided, yet none can question their patriotism and sense of community. Lincoln at Gettysburg said that it was the blood of those men and women who had consecrated that ground above any earthly power. Even if we do not ask such sacrifice from our residents, can we not ask a few hours, a little extra effort to protect all which we so value? It is a suggestion I think might bear consideration.

And now our enemy - - who are they?

They are first of all, I think, individuals. As far as I can perceive, through all history, there has never been a “popular” uprising. From the revolt of the Greek city-states against Alexander, to the Jewish uprising against Rome, to the French Revolution and even our own Revolution, the insurgents have never been the totality of their respective populations. They were individuals, perhaps in groups or movements or even mobs, but individuals nevertheless. It seems to me all such actions are individual, made decisive by individual choices made by thousands, even millions, of individuals. And with those choices, I think we must realize, there are thousands, millions of different reasons for joining together in larger purpose. In that is the enemy’s strength, that so many divergent decisions can lead to singularity of purpose, and their greatest weakness. For it means that individuals can become disillusioned, disheartened and dissident from that singular purpose.

Now they call themselves Muslims, even use the religious thought of that great religion, to lend credence to their acts. It is perhaps well for us to remember that this is not the first time in history that some of the followers of a great world religion has followed such a deviant path. In fact in Christianity’s foundation literature, the New Testament, we are introduced to one of the main characters who follows such a path, Judas Iscariot. The Iscariot in his name refers to a Jewish radical group the Iscarii, who used the dagger as a tool of policy and terror, assassinating any Jew or Roman deemed an enemy. Nearly a thousand years later, Islam had its own version of such aberration, the Hashassins or Assassins. They attacked anyone regardless of religion, even threatening the great Saladin himself with their daggers. At that time, Islam realized the danger of such radicalism and a war ensued, similar to our war on terror, in which that sect was hunted and hounded throughout the Muslim world. In that war, Islam lost the Caliphate, a series of leaders reaching back to the Prophet himself, to the machinations of the Assassins. And only the invasions of the Mongols prevented Islam from ridding itself from that perversion. And in tribute to the Mongols, one of their first tasks was to pull down the last strongholds of the Assassin sect. Yet they allowed Islam to exist. They realized the radical was not the orthodox.

We should not be confused by the claims of the radical terrorists today any more than the Mongols were. Is it not wise to separate out the adherents of a religion whose name indicates “peace” from their schismatics? To separate the Faithful from those who would turn upon and attack their own co-religionists in actions of suicidal mass destruction? And, in keeping with the idea of individual choice, should we not try to find those amongst the heretics who are themselves appalled by their group’s actions, and who may turn to aid us in our war? And to help the Muslim World to rid itself of a aberration that is of greater danger to them then it is even to us?

One other point about our enemy. They may be terrorists yet it is not terrorism we are at war with in reality. Terrorism is a method, a tactic, a way for a person or group to strike an enemy or cow them into submission. To make this a war on terror reminds me of the only other place in history I have been able to find such confusion of purpose - - the Roman war on piracy. Urged and conducted in part by Julius Caesar, the war against piracy did manage, for a while, to rid the Mediterranean Sea of pirates, yet also furthered the career of Caesar who eventually laid the groundwork for the dissolution of the Roman Republic and the rise of emperors. I think it did not seem a fair trade then and we must be aware of such unintended results even now.

All that seems to me to be based on reason and history. And it leads to another line of information on our foes, how they fight. It seems to me, these present terrorists are truly the descendants of groups like the Assassins. Of the varied terrorist groups that have struck against us and their own, several use the techniques pioneered by the Iscarii and the Assassins. The practice of having a future suicide bomber spend days in chanting prayer, culminated by spending three days living in a grave-like hole before the act itself, bespeaks of the psychological techniques honed over the centuries. The use of charities to funnel support to terrorists, is an example of the radicals perverting one of the major tenets of Islam to their own ends, not those of the Prophet. The calling for a Jihad uses a concept which has more internal personal meaning, as in a war of the soul against sin, than it has ever had as societal warfare. Jihad has often been used for societal change in Islam, far less for warfare, especially on groups outside of that religion.

And one concept I have so far not seen overtly displayed by our enemies is a concept we should perhaps be cognizant of and take steps to disarm. That is the concept, not of Koranic origin but coming from tradition, of the Mahdi, the Returning One. It is a powerful idea yet one which we may be able to prevent from becoming a problem. It seems to stem from two streams in the Muslim tradition, the idea that a Returned One will come to reinstate and spread Islam just before the Muslim End of Days, and the special favor God showed the Twelfth Imam, that he could remain alive and hidden till that time of deliverance. It is a holy, but potentially dangerous, tradition because of the ability of opportunists to take advantage of it. The last time, in the Sudan of the 1880s, it threatened both the Islamic power of the Ottoman Turks and the influence of the British Empire itself. In fact some have traced the beginning of the end of the British Empire and the hegemony of the Ottomans to that confrontation.

The rise of Sadir in Iraq and his “mahdi army” should perhaps be a warning for us, especially with the genocide in the Sudan, a place where descendants of the 1880s Mahdi still exist. Also, since Sudan was a base of operation for several years of Bin Laden, it would be the height of misdirection, if part of the true purpose of Al Queda was to set up a system of loosely interlocking organizations in preparation for the rise of the Returned One. And the entrance of such a person into the Muslim nations could set up the conditions for a Jihad of world proportions.

There may be a way to disarm such a threat and return the concept of the Returned One to the religious tradition it comes from and away from terrorist politicization. The beginning of that way is simple yet laden with importance, it is respect and understanding. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all peoples of the Book. That Book is the Bible. All three religions trace their lineage from Abraham, respect the line of prophets, and in the case of Islam, even respect Christ as Prophet of God. In fact in Islam it is usually thought that it is Christ who will come to gather the faithful during the End times.
At their core all these three great religions stem from one main tradition and hold the same basic tenets. And, in the beginning at least, there was respect of these religions each for the other. It is well to remember that for over a thousand years, Jews and Christians lived and prospered under Islam, and were totally in its power, yet were not annihilated. It is also well to remember that over the last hundred years the Islamic nations have lived under the financial, technological and even colonial influence of the mainly Christian powers, and have not been decimated by that association. And in the last decade America has come to the aid of almost 100 million of its Muslim Brethren in places such as Kuwait, Bosnia and Iraq and Afghanistan. Such history gives us the hope that there is more efficacy in Brotherhood than in enmity.

And that commonality cannot come without respect and understanding. It is perhaps not a bad idea for us and our leaders to read the Koran, to join with our Muslim Brothers in the practices of charity and welfare that the Koran speaks of. These are also Judeo-Christian concepts. It is perhaps not a bad idea that we, not the terrorists, should at least offer our great abundance to the Muslim charities and take part ourselves in helping and directing the use of our donations. It is perhaps wise that we should make common cause with our own American Muslims to reach out to their co-religionists in the Muslim World. Perhaps our Congress and legislatures might even invite Muslim clerics, along with their Brethren the Jewish Rabbis and Christian ministers, to give the benediction at opening ceremonies.

We must also remember how past Muslim revolutions, perhaps even all revolutions, took place. Many times in history actions were taken to destroy revolution and insurrection. Leaders were executed, followers deported or imprisoned. Quietude and status quo returned. Yet memories were not erased, perceived hurts not cured, militant visions not surrendered. A case in point is the rise of Wahhabism in Islam. Usually traced to the 1800s and the innovator ibn Abd al-Wahhab, it is well to remember the roots go much farther back.

In the 9th century ibn Hanbal created a movement meant to return Islam to the basics of the Koran and the traditions associated with the Prophet. His life was one persecution after another, not by “infidels” but by his own religionists. 800,000 are said to have attended his funeral, and he did not die by the hand of his enemies only because they were afraid of the consequences. His ideas lay supposedly impotent until the 14th century, when ibn Taymiyah put forward his own brand of them. Like Hanbal, he was hounded by his own throughout his life, and died in a final imprisonment. It was almost another 500 years before ibn Wahhab took those ideas up and the result was the alliance of the house of Saud with the Wahhabis and the eventual creation of the modern state of Saudi Arabia.
I think most would agree that torture, exile and prison cannot kill an idea. Ideas, as well as ideals and values, exist in a sort of metaphysical space, untouched by earthly things. Of course their creators and adherents can be subjected to physical and psychological means, yet the idea remains. A torch laid aside for a while for another hand to pick up. In fact do we not depend on that principal to aid us in this war? Many have said the terrorists hate democracy and freedom. That they wish to attack us in order to destroy those ideals. If that is so, our enemy has aimed wrong. They have chosen targets and ends that will never perish from this earth. My only concern is that we exercise wisdom in selecting our own targets in this war. That we not confuse the person with the idea, the organization with the ideals. It was said long ago that if one knows both the enemy and oneself, then one can succeed in a thousand battles. Let us hope we have learned that lesson.

The field of harvest of the Muslim World is over a billion strong. Just as in Christianity, toiling in the fields of the Lord, Islam toils amongst its own. The schismatic terrorist element in Islam is actually taking souls from those same fields. Our concern might be that Islam should be the gleaners, not the terrorists. It is not easy, we all have our own concerns, our own prejudices, our own visions of religious purpose. And all of us, Muslim, Christian and Jew, exist together in this world, and if we truly believe in a God, then it is God Who has put us here. What is the purpose? Many think that humanity is unable to perceive God’s purpose, that Fate the finger God writes with, is unknowable and unchangeable, and what will be will be. And truth or not, Fate will be by definition our end. Yet, perhaps, the path we take to that end can be either pleasant or harsh. Can nurture ourselves and our fellow travelers or separate us and put us at each others throats.

Terrorism is in the end individual choice. So is compassion, charity and love. For as many millennia as humanity has existed, I would like to think those three tendancies have always triumphed. Against the hatred of the tyrant, against the despair of the pogrom, against the death of the concentration camp. Humanity, the very name we give to our global community, has within it a word that harkens to the idea of what the least thing is we can be to each other - - humane.

If a journey begins with the first small step, then perhaps we should look upon being humane to each other as our first step. Yes, we must attack foes who attack us, defend ourselves from such attacks, yet let us not forget our own history. The card games and improvised bands who made music in the trenches around Vicksburg show us the humane. The Christmas Truce of World War I shows it too. And the constant meetings we have with even our most consistent enemies, held under banners of diplomacy and politics, also speaks to being humane. Trying to find a way. Seeking commonness in the diversity and dissension. Always, through all history, we have practiced the humane. Perhaps that is God’s purpose, that on the way to Fate we realize we are all on the same road.

And such thinking may be important in the extreme right now. Religions and politics are two of the three things you never want to discuss in a bar, unless you want a fight. And our enemies want a fight, so religion and “satanic” politics are exactly the things they use in their reasons for enmity against us. They wish to make it seem we are not on the same road they are. In truth it sometimes seems they are right. Many of our own critics of the War on Terror, have pointed to past corporate and government policies that have apparently hurt certain groups in the world, especially the poor. And since many in the world are not clear on how exactly our system works, it is not hard to imagine their confusion. In fact we are not even sure how our system works completely. And we have an historical blindness to how we act in the world. Often, like some newborn giant, we have stomped about over the world, doing this and that, yet never seeing the consequences.

Some of our doing has been of great benefit to the entire world. A case in point might be the Panama Canal, created after usurping the sovereignty of an existing state, it has benefited the whole world and conscientiously we have handed it over to the people of Panama finally. In counterpoint is the control of Meso-American farming by fruit companies and the hopefully unintended effects of poverty and ingrained political powerlessness. Such examples make a trail extending even to the present. Some say we have an awful time understanding the realities and concerns of others in the world, especially those who hold the least in common with us.

Perhaps. Yet we have always had a concept of “good” in what we do. It may be we forget that the road to hell is paved by good intentions, yet we do love to pave roads anywhere. Understanding that fact might be a caution to us. Perception is reality, anyone who has fallen in love with a ramshackle house or an ugly dog, knows that. The object of affection, as well as the object of development, becomes enshrined as the ultimate of love interests, the ultimate of global interests. To think that such focus would be understood by everyone around the world is simply laughable. They would almost have to misunderstand, since we ourselves often do. So is it not wise to begin self-examination of the tasks we undertake? Is not self-discovery the first step on each of our roads individually? Do we not have to know the reach of our legs before we can walk? Do we not have our first contact with wisdom when we learn that there are things we do not know and have not mastered? And do we not learn in the fights and tussles of the playground that even our friends do not think the same way we do?

Terrorists use alternately ignorance and immersion. They point at the actions of the “other,” at the same time steeping their own in the folds of faith and limitation. They have a view too, perhaps diametrically opposed to ours, yet subject to the same problems. They should have to explain how violence and death advances Humanity. Explain how the use of force can better the life of those they supposedly serve. Explain to the survivors how random and indiscriminate destruction can build a civilization. In too many instances, both in their view and ours, action outweighs reason, mayhem outweighs compassion. A limited understanding and unwillingness to learn are the heartwood of radicalism. Our opponents do not have the patent on that, one hopes we can overcome that same tendency in ourselves.

One has to remember, I think, that in the years since World War II, there have been hundreds of wars, untold millions of casualties. We, as a world, hesitate wisely to go to war again. It seems that individual nations, splinter groups and insurrectionists of all kinds, have not learned the futility of that practice. We are a world at war constantly. We seem to have substituted for war as an action of blocks of nations with the wars of hundreds of communities often within their own societies.

Terrorism is only one tool in these wars yet a potent one. We have had this “terrorist conspiracy” for only a few years supposedly. We have not yet seen the growth of a web between religious terrorism and other more secular kinds. This was one of the hallmarks of the period of state terrorism. During that time, totally dissimilar religious, ethnic and political terrorist organizations developed connections. They supplied each other, trained each other and supported each other. If that situation begins to develop in this war, we will be sorely put upon. The previous state terrorists are still out there. They may no longer have the full support of the sponsoring states, yet they continue to exist. If we think they will not eventually reach out to each other we ignore history. It was the cooperation of some of the Greek city-states that helped the Persians invade. It was the splits in the Jewish community which aided the Romans in controlling Jerusalem. Even in the Iran-Contra affair, Israel, Saudi-Arabia and other Muslim nations formed the cooperation which gave weaponry to the Afghan terrorists-cum-freedom-fighters. If it happened in those and many more cases, it can happen again. Bin Laden has already tried offering “deals” to nations who do not support America in this war. While nations might not accept, the dissenting groups in them might.

Many have said that “things changed” on 9/11. Perhaps they did not. Terrorism has been with us through all history. It may even find its source in the original hunting parties that became war parties as society changed. Modern terrorism is daily bread for billions upon this world. America has been blest by absence of terror, though the families of those lost at the Federal Building might not agree. Until 9/11. Then we perceived change and perception is reality for us now. Perhaps we should not ignore the experience of all those others who are under the threat every day. Along with the promoted change in our Intelligence, we should also promote a study of how terrorism is handled by both our allies and enemies, and with what success. We might even search back in history for societies who have coped with the problem.

Of all the departments that have been developed in the governments of the world, you never hear of the Department of Historical Solutions. Some say there is nothing new under the sun, perhaps we should take the principal to heart. If true there are solutions out there waiting to be found. We, and many others, do not seem to be doing the searching. Perhaps doing that and being just a little more self-conscious about our policies and the perception of them, can begin the process.

Yet we are at war, however one defines it. It is perhaps good to understand the logistics of terrorism of any kind. Like insurgent warfare, terrorism has a need for support. Right now it seems to have very full supply lines. If only one-tenth of one percent of the Muslims in the world are suckered in by the terrorists, that means we have one million opponents. If a tenth of those are actually “in the field” we face an army of 100,000. Actually it will be less, since like guerrilla warfare, there is a ratio some say is a hundred to one for those actually “doing” terrorism. So we face perhaps 10,000 in the field. It means we must take an operational approach to defeating the enemy, attacking not only with military but also communication and financial means. We have, along with other nations, helped create offshore banking systems which now aid our enemies. We, again along with others, have been arms merchants to the world. We and others have also turned a blind eye to all sorts of illegal and immoral forces in the world.

Coherence is a hard thing to do. If we were all consistent, we would all be millionaires and the presidential ballot would have hundreds of candidates on it. Yet survival is a hard and fast teacher. We must not only strike with the sword, we must educate with our communications and begin to legislate offshore banking into oblivion. We must also look into the underground streams of weaponry which have grown into rivers, especially since the World Wars. And we must begin seriously to limit and reduce nuclear weaponry and those ephemeral weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately modern statehood has made such weapons instruments of policy, or worse instruments of accepted practice.

We should perhaps first look at those things we are in almost complete control of. We determine how we operate in the world and how we explain that operation to the world. We need to use a form of “cultural correctness” when we do things in this world. And we must make sure it does not degenerate into the political correctness of recent times, instead it should simply be applied study and attempted understanding of those we do government and business with. And we must communicate what we do honestly and openly and the what and why of what we do in the world. And, in both cases, we must be ready not only to accept criticism but also to examine and act upon that criticism.
If we set our actions in stone, we simply build a mausoleum. We must practice our native creativity to aid ourselves and others. We are best served by what we do best. We have innovated on the stage of history, perhaps we should keep innovating even on the stages of development, business and religious understanding. If we can correctly convey to some of our enemy’s supporters what we are about, then they may lose those supporters. Even our own soldiers cannot survive without supplies. One of the methods of combating terrorism must be allowing individuals supporting terrorism to change their minds and be welcomed back into the fold of Humanity. Who knows, they may come back with important information about their former allies. We must help prevent the “cannon fodder” that terrorists depend on. We must aid those people to find their worth as human beings in the family of Humanity. We must starve off the flow of “trainees” by giving more appropriate and life-affirming choices to them. If we do not do this, then even if we gain victory in the present battle, the war will continue.