Author: Dr. Brooks A. Mick
Publication: The Conservative Voice
Date: August 5, 2006
URL: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16745.html
There was a book published twenty years ago
which still holds much relevance for today. Gayle Rivers, a counterterrorism
expert, member of the British SAS, wrote from first-hand experience about
what was necessary to defeat terrorism.
The book was "The War Against the Terrorists,"
which I advise you to find and read. It could have been, with the changing
of a few names, written yesterday. It was written as a plea to the president
of the United States, Ronald Reagan at the time, to wake up and realize the
growing danger that terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism, posed to the
world.
I was especially impressed by a brief paragraph,
calmly stated, which spelled out a major risk factor: Americans simply did
not understand that terrorists had already launched the war agains them.
"Americans tend to be complacent about
danger to their national sec urity from paramilitary forces. They still expect
wars to be declared the way President Roosevelt did the day after the Japanese
destroyed the fleet and ground installations at Pearl Harbor. Americans still
expect that if an enemy force crosses a line, as the North Koreans did when
they stormed across the 38th parallel, the President will be able to rally
the Allies and stem the tide."
Too bad that Reagan, Bush1, and Clinton did
not take the war on terrorism as seriously as Rivers requested. All tended
to adopt a much too legalistic approach.
A local talk show host where I live still
rants on occasion about the illegality and unconstitutionality of the Iraqi
front of the war against the terrorists. There are two problems with the talk
host's position: 1) The congressional authorization to the president to use
any force of his choosing at whatever time and place of his choosing did constitute
a de facto declaration of war. There is no specific wording specified in the
constitution for a declaration of war. 2) The prior Gulf War I had been suspended
by a cease fire and thus, when the conditions of said cease fire were broken
by Saddam Hussein, the resumption of the war was quite legal.
But this illustrates what Gayle Rivers was
exposing in his book: Americans are too inclined to consider fighting terrorists
as a civil and legal matter, suitable more for police and SWAT teams than
for soldiers. Rivers points out the dangers of treating terrorists as legal
problems. Terrorists in captivity just become excuses for other terrorists
to kidnap hostages and demand the release of the imprisoned terrorists. "The
fact is that the American view of terrorism is still geared to a law-and-order
mind-set." Far better, says Rivers, and quite convincingly, to just kill
them all where and when you find them.
The media would bitch and moan, to be sure.
Katie Couric might not approve. Chapter 8 of Rivers' book delineates the problems
the media poses to right action in the war on terrorism. 1) It is not just
the nexus of terrorists, rogue nations, and WMD which constitute the agents
of evil, but terrorism, rogue nations, WMD, and the media. In the distant
past, a terrorist could create havoc and fear in his own small area of the
world. Now, with the advent of modern media, a terrorist act can terrify the
world at large. It is the wide dissemination of information about the terrorist
act which gives it much of its power. 2) Counterterrorism, by its nature,
is clandestine, not filmable, and thus generally escapes the notice of the
media.
Rivers suggests ways the media could help,
if they wanted to. 1) Report on the political parentage of the terrorist group.
2) Documentaries on the evil side of terrorism--the suicide bombers who didn't
really volunteer but were coerced or drugged, reporting images of the innocent
killed by terrorists, and others. 3) Portraying the terrorist accurately,
not as a hero or freedom fighter, but a vicious fanatic who has made violence
against innocent civilians his end.
Rivers' primary revelation concerning terrorism
and the media is this: "The terrorists' real objective when killing and
maiming is to get you to report it." I have made a similar point in a
previous column on this website. Many of the explosions one sees in the news
media are Hollywood explosions, staged to show smoke and fire and look horrific
on video.
Rivers covers the United Nations too. The
good old U.N. was just as effective then as it is now. Regarding a hostage-taking
by Muslim terrorists:
"On December 18th, the Security Coun\cil
fo the United Nations adopted a resolution that condemned 'all acts of hostage-taking
and abduction.' The vote was unanimous...The Security Council called for the
immediate and safe release of all hostages and abducted people. Exactly nothing
happened. Did anyone really believe that such an institution would be taken
seriously by the terrorist world? It was another demonstration of impotence."
The U. N. Secretary General at the time, Javier
Perez de Cuellar, said "We are living in another age of fanatics and
we don't know what to do about it."
I believe the U.N. is still passing ineffective
resolutions and that Kofi Annan' speeches have demonstrated that they still
don't know what to do.
Rivers has chapters detailing the danger posed
by technology and new weapons in the hands of terrorists. He dedicates a chapter
specifically to the vulnerability of America and especially of New York City.
He states what does and doesn't work in the war on terrorism. Appeasement
doesn't work (This is likely a surprise to Democrats.) Retaliation doesn't
work (This may be a surprise to the Israelis). Prevention does hold considerable
promise. Most, however, you have to just go and kill terrorists and keep killing
them.
I'm out of space to cover Haney's "Beyond
Shock and Awe." But it has much good info, even if a bit more dull and
dry than Rivers' book. Read it if you are interested in modern warfare and
the fight against terrorism.