Fighting the wrong enemy

I had a dream the other night that it was Dec. 8, 1941, and I was listening to Franklin Roosevelt give a speech on the radio declaring war on evil aircraft carriers, like the ones that had attacked Pearl Harbor.

It was a strange bit of time warp, but was consistent with the flurry of articles I've been reading lately, both liberal and conservative, which are picking apart what is going wrong in Iraq and the War on Terror.

When things start going wrong on so many levels, you can bet there is a major problem with the foundation of your efforts. It's like a building where the walls keep cracking because the base was built on shifting sand. And when it comes to the current conflict, there's enough shifting sand to fill a desert.

You can look at a lot of reasons for our current difficulties, but where I see the problem starting was George W. Bush's declaration of war on "terrorism." It was just after 9/11, and the country was in a mood for revenge. Perhaps it was the fervor that precluded the questioning of a war on "terrorism." After all, terrorism is a tactic, a tool of war, hence the dream about "evil" aircraft carriers being the enemy in 1941. Terrorism has been used by groups of widely differing philosophies, from Soviet-backed revolutionaries to right-wing death quads, sometimes against each other. Some were fighting on our side.

This declaration is the foundation of our Middle East troubles. Terror is the enemy, according to Bush, and we must seek it out wherever it exists. But this view ignores the fact that terror is merely a weapon wielded by the real enemy, which we seem to be doing everything possible to make stronger.

The enemy here is an ideology, much like it was during the Cold War. The Soviet Union didn't fall because we invaded, but because its citizens decided they liked our ideology better than the Russian version of Communism.

It wasn't a fast victory. It took 40-plus years of containment and alliance-building. But it worked.

So we look at where we are now and it's clear that someone didn't pay close attention to history, or they have a very shallow understanding of what the enemy is. The terrorists who attacked this country follow an extreme form of Islam, as do the masses who support them. As happens in repressive societies where inequities are institutionalized, it's the radicals who gain power among the powerless. The message of radical Islam speaks to those who feel repressed, giving them a way to fight back.

Rule No. 1 for winning any conflict is Know Your Enemy. We should take the time to listen to what these terrorists are saying. That's not to say that we need to capitulate to their demands, but that we might learn what it is that drives them and attracts their followers.

For instance, the allure of bin Laden is strong in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. All three are U.S.-supported dictatorships where the common people have no political power. Bush talks of bringing democracy to the Middle East, yet seems unable to even broach the subject with these so-called allies, even with his good Saudi friends. He has rewarded all three countries for their anti-democratic behavior, which in turn fans the flames of discontent which benefits bin Laden.

The governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in particular have made deals that encourage radical Islam. Pakistan supports Islamic terrorists in neighboring Kashmir, and helped create the Taliban in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia funds the schools that teach this destructive ideology and use elements of religious law to retain power among their own people.

When Saudi Crown Prince Abdulla proclaims that Zionists (i.e. Israel) are behind the recent al-Qaida attacks in his country, you have to wonder just how this person could be considered an ally in this or any war.

If we are to win this conflict, we need to determine what is the real enemy and defeat it. It might require more than just bombing countries back into the Stone Age.

Kirk Caraway is Internet editor for the Nevada Appeal.