|
|
Making Terrorism Your
Friend
(Doug Casey, interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International
Speculator)
Almost exactly three years before the 9/11 attacks, Doug Casey had one
of his famous Guru Moments, writing in the September 1998 edition of
the International Speculator:
Terrorism is
becoming a major force
in the world, as evidenced by Clinton actually referring to the use of
nuclear, biological, and chemical devices in the U.S. I've thought
their use against U.S. targets was an inevitability for years. But with
the U.S. government launching its own terror strikes against Third
World targets, the inevitable is starting to look imminent. Let's put
it this way: Living in Washington, New York or other population centers
is not terribly prudent.
And again, the International Speculator that arrived in mailboxes
mid-July, 2001 – rather good timing – had a feature article entitled
"Waiting for World War III," which discussed, at great length,
terrorism and Islam – and even mentioned Osama Bin Laden.
L: Tatich,
we've touched on
terrorism a number of times in our conversations, particularly when we
discussed the military and in our conversation on the implications of
the attack on the IRS building a few weeks ago. Let's stop beating
around the bush and talk about terrorism.
Editor's Note:
"Tatich" means "Big Chief" in the Mayan language.
Doug: Okay,
but as with most
areas where there's a lot of sloppy thinking, we should first start
with a definition. If words are used too loosely, or inaccurately, then
it's really impossible to know what is actually under discussion.
"Terrorism" is a concept that everybody talks about, but almost nobody
bothers to define. According to Webster's New World Dictionary,
terrorism is "the use of force or threats to intimidate, especially as
a political policy." This implies that all governments engage in
terrorism daily against their own citizens – which is actually true, as
anyone who's been audited by the IRS can tell you. A somewhat narrower
definition of terrorism is: "an act of wholesale violence, for
political ends, that deliberately targets civilians."
As we discussed in our conversation on the IRS attack and unintended
consequences, the government's definition of terrorism is "the unlawful
use of force or violence against persons or property, meant to
intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian population as a means
for achieving political or social goals."
L: What a
great self-serving definition.
Doug:
[Laughs] It really is
funny. And more than a little Orwellian in the way the meaning is
twisted. By the government's definition, it's perfectly all right to do
these things – as long as it's legal.
L: Not even
that – hence the
dodge of sending prisoners accused of no crime in any court of law to
Guantanamo, to get around the illegality of indefinite detention. The
message is that terrorism, even torture – "waterboarding" – is just
peachy, as long as it's the "authorities" doing it. Did you hear Karl
Rove defending torture of the Guantanamo prisoners? He said he was
proud of it, and that the intelligence gathered was invaluable.
Apparently rights, and even right itself, is of no concern.
Doug: Last
year, I debated Rove
in New Orleans – you'd never know what a moral cripple he is from the
pleasant and personable exterior. We should discuss the banality of
evil at some point.
L: I heard
that debate and was
proud of you for telling him to his face that he ought to be ashamed
for Guantanamo and other crimes committed by the administration he was
part of. But back to terrorism. Given your definition of "an act of
wholesale violence, for political ends, that deliberately targets
civilians," why is this important to us in particular – other than as
something to be avoided?
Doug: Because
terrorism is the
future of warfare. Far from going away, it's going to become the most
common form of military conflict.
L: You don't
think America can win the War on Terror?
Doug: [Sighs
deeply] No. Not
only is that impossible, the very idea is meaningless. Terrorism is not
an enemy – it's a tactic. You can't have a war on terrorism any more
than you can have a war on artillery barrages, cavalry charges – or a
war on war, for that matter. The first step in winning a conflict is to
identify the actual enemy. And the fools in DC can't even do that.
But before we look at the future, it's worth noting that terrorism has
long been a favored tool of those in power, going all the way back to
ancient times.
L: Sure. As
with your IRS
example; that's why they periodically crucify ordinary Joes – it keeps
the rest in fear and hence quiescent. People don't pay taxes out of
pure love for the homeland – it's plain terrorism that keeps them in
line.
Doug: Of
course. It's just not
on the scale of Genghis Khan or Tamerlane, who used to stack skulls
into pyramids. Or the Romans, who literally did crucify people to show
what happens to those who go up against the state.
L: Agreed,
but on a moral plane, it's equivalent; it's not about what's right,
it's about enforcing submission.
Doug: Sure,
you could say that
"the state" is actually terrorism on a grand scale. It's bizarre how
most people view the state as necessary or even benign. It may offend
some of our readers who have been programmed into believing the
military can do no wrong and that the U.S. always has God on its side,
but logically, the bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo are prime
examples of state-sponsored terrorism.
World War II, in effect, legitimized the concept of mass murder of
civilians. As late as World War I, the concept of incinerating whole
cities would have been totally beyond the pale; WWII turned the moral
clock back to the Middle Ages, when the wholesale slaughter of
civilians was considered acceptable.
I suspect the "Long 19th Century," from about 1776-1914, will be looked
back on as a golden age, a peak of civilization, when the individual
was ascendant, the state was under control, free-market capitalism was
lauded, and progress seemed natural and inevitable. Technology has
improved since then, but it's a mistake to conflate technological
progress with moral progress.
To read Doug’s
assessment why the U.S. can never win the “War on Terrorism” and the
investment implications, click HERE
|
|
|
