Lecture 1 Notes

Terrorism

Peace!

&

Other Inconsistencies

Let’s start with the substance

This course examines contemporary terrorism
as it is
as we (and others) debate what it really is
as we debate the debates, and then decide what terrorism really is and what it means with an eye toward policies that end or control it
with regard to how it has become the DOMINANT THEME IN WESTERN SOCIETIES, as well as the driving force in US DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY SINCE September 11, 2001 [9-11]

We begin by accepting the claims of President Bush that since 9-11 we have a new formula for US National Security:
TERRORISM + WMD + ROGUE STATES
                     =        
       AN UNPRECEDENTED DANGER
 Terrorism
There is a distinctively new form of terrorism, existent most pronouncedly in al-Qaeda, that is not ‘politics by other means’ or a form of bargaining that seeks political concessions or status. Instead, this new terrorism:
seeks elimination, death, destruction, and at its worst employs suicide methods. The spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) increases even more the threats posed by this trend.
 
achieves its strength and versatility through the toleration by some nations and the direct support of others.
is global in reach and seeks new allies aggressively. It is well financed.
Opposes freedom and the US way of life – it is jihadist (Islamist) facism

(6) Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Impact of the New Terrorism on US policy towards WMDs:
There is a clear concern that global proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons was a threat to all, but especially to the US.
The US will not permit any nation to develop these weapons, which has not already done so.
 
The level of commitment to this position is so strong, the US will engage in pre-emptive strikes or war to eliminate the threat of their spread to other states/non-state actors.
[US National Security Strategy (2006): http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/ ]

The ‘state’ problem
Failed state – has no central authority and thus terrorists and international criminals operate unchecked. 
        e.g.: Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq (?)
Rogue state – has a demonstrated hostility to western international law and often its states. Seeks WMD acquisition. 
        e.g.: Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, N.Korea,     Cuba.
 In addition, the President and his inner circle, articulate cultural & ‘moral’ lessons of 9-11 [and after]:

Unless you deal with them forcefully and with finality,  ‘bad guys come back to bite you’
And they don’t play according to any rules
Our rules constrain us too much – we are too vulnerable, too free and too open.
 
 
Our friends may want us to stay within the  rules, but the truth is that when we are done (with Saddam or whoever), they will all thank us.
Faced with such, the US can and will ‘go it alone’ as few are threatened as we are.
Military plans for such actions must be far ahead of the diplomatic one, because these are unprecedented military (and terrorist) threats.
In fact one of our major contributions is that  ‘we’  treat terrorism as war, not as crime
 Morals and politics combine in the National Security Strategy of 2002 [w/variants after that:

Open-ended war on terror….over there
Aggressive pursuit of those who seek to develop WMDs, [add: whether state or non-state actors?]
Cannot forgo advantages we have in technology and our own WMD (nuclear) development
Cannot permit areas of instability to develop [ add - democratize the world to keep democracy safe at home?]
Preventive action may be necessary …….doctrine of pre-emption
Recognize that we are in a “Long War” (Rumsfeld, 05)

Reflection #1:
Where do you and other citizens fit in all of this ‘new and unprecedented’ global politics?
Does your position depend on
    (a) where you live in the globe?
    (b) whom you call your god? 
    (c) what your experiences have been with the US? With other powerful states
(3) How do you feel about all of this?
(4) What do you believe?
(5) What do you know – in fact?
 

Reflection Time # 2:
    What does PEACE mean in an era of TERRORISM and COUNTER-terrorism?
How different is the challenge of understanding and creating peace in an age of terror from other time periods with different threats?
Or, is the question whether there can ever be peace in an era of terror, as if peace and terror were incompatible and inconsistent with one another?
Must we choose between global peace, or peace for others, and national security?
What does the course do with all of this?
Start by exploring the ‘problematique’ at its face value and on its own terms
Really try to struggle with the issues from the perspective of those who
    (a) are highly nationalist, security focused and aggressive militarily AND
    (b) think that this approach is wrong morally and/or politically
Decompose the key parts of each to build a fuller and richer analysis & interject some history and more critical thinking

Also, we
Explore what we knew and experienced about terrorism before 9-11
Examine the extent of terror from al-Qaeda and others worldwide now
Examine terror tactics and circumstances and our assessments of these
Dissect the War on Terror and its extensions, with a special focus on counter-terrorism policy
Search out the meaning of peace in these circumstances and ask if it can be accomplished


Investigate
WMDs in a modest way
Explore the case for going to war with Iraq, Iran, Syria [N. Korea?]
Explore how and why we seldom deal with ‘state terror’ with special emphasis on Darfur (Sudan)
Figure out how to live sanely, safely, and responsibly in a world of increased terrorism [and counter-terrorism?]
We have some behavioral goals:

That you become more literate on these themes than 99% of the US [or: rest of the] population
That you have the ability to express your views as you see fit in the future (while hearing in the best sense the views of others)
That you are able to make linkages, explore varied other dimensions, and bring more complexity to analysis of these contemporary problems over time….and that you retain both a curiosity and an imagination for doing so.
 What we expect of you:
Lots of steady and excellent work, esp. reading
The ability to master the reading – demonstrated in 3 exams, 2 op eds
Show up – movies, class, etc
Deliver assignments on time – register for your choices and follow through on them
What could be wrong with this effort

Terrorism and peace may actually be too inconsistent for our liking – both Gandhi & Machiavelli may be wrong
The professor could pontificate
The students could pontificate
The course size could stifle people
A word on the reading sources
NYTimes
E-reserve
Nacos book
Annual Editions
Howard & Sawyer
A word about the assignments
Random homework
2 exams
A final
Three op-eds
Attendance, loyalty, honesty
Your Questions