-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Not the end of terrorism, say Cal State-Long Beach experts
Archive
Comments
Story
(U-WIRE) LONG BEACH, Calif. • The ongoing U.S. war against terrorism focused on Osama bin Laden and the Taliban has a long and complicated history that many people might not know about. President BushOs decision to bomb Afghanistan may fuel the very terrorism it intends to destroy, according to California State University-Long Beach history professor Donald Schwartz. “I think we’re in a very precarious position right now,” said Schwartz, an expert in modern European diplomatic history. “We have to avoid making this attack look like an attack against Afghanistan, and an attack on the nation of Islam in general.” “We could make this extremist movement very popular,” Schwartz said, adding that military strikes in the Middle East might be interpreted as a war against Islam, a war he said that no one can win.
Americans reported in some polls that they approved of military intervention in Afghanistan at a rate of 93 percent. But Schwartz warned that unless the United States examines the long-range impact of its foreign policy, global support and public opinion are likely to decline. “This kind of attack, with cruise missiles, it makes some of us feel good,O he said. OThey attacked the World Trade Center, weOre attacking them. But what are we attacking? I mean, weOre attacking a country that has largely been devastated.”
Other professors were considering whether the ultimate goals of the attacks had been thought through. CSULB professor Arlene Lazarowitz, a U.S. foreign relations expert, said Afghanistan is not a nation in the conventional sense, but rather a group of warring factions. “If we take out the Taliban, who are we going to replace it with?” Lazarowitz asked. She described the country as pre-industrial, eviscerated, and largely evacuated. “We cannot use conventional bombing to bring them to their knees,” she said. Lazarowitz said anger toward the United States has been brewing in the Middle East for a long time. Though America has worked hard to form a coalition with countries in the area, the choice to strike one spot could easily infuriate some people in other parts, spark infighting, break up the coalition, and even incite war, Lazarowitz said.
Americans should eventually examine claims that U.S. foreign policy has sometimes contradicted its stated goals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy, Schwartz said. The acting director of the CSULB international studies program, Larry George, said there are four or five reasons why people in the Middle East are angry with the United States. The expert in foreign military interventions and 20th century wars said Palestinians are uncomfortable that the United States maintains military bases near Israel.
American support of Israel has inadvertently allowed some extremist Israeli groups to flourish, to seize occupied territories that are not rightfully theirs, and even threaten the existence of the Palestinian state, said George. He cited other sources of conflict.
• United States manipulation of oil politics. Those policies might go over better if the United States were to encourage local governments they align with to redistribute the oil wealth in the region.
• Arms sales to the region. The United States has armed the Saudi airforce, and provided low-tech weapons and anti-aircraft to different countries, including Afghanistan.
• Support of governments that have proven to be oppressive, such as Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan and Pakistan.
• Support of economic sanctions against Iraq, where the chief victims are children, not the leaders.
“There has been a lot of anger at the U.S. for its support of Israel and its failure to follow through long-term commitment to replenishing the economic base and help provide humanitarian aid in the area,” George said. Going before the United Nations and using the rule of law instead of the rule of force would have made a different statement to the world, and would have inspired more global support and respect in the long run, Schwartz said. Dealing with terrorism is a difficult and long-range operation, Schwartz said. He praised Bush’s efforts to work with Islamic governments to give food and aid to the Afghani people.
Jeanne Hoffa, Daily Forty-Niner (California State U.-Long Beach)
