The number killed in Bush’s “War on Terrorism” is not known. We know the number of “allied” killed but we do not know the number of casualties among Afghans or Iraqis.
Bush’s war officially started when a fairly small group of individuals caused the deaths of around 3,000 people to promote their political ends. So far in reaction maybe 150-200,000 have been killed. But a smaller group of murderers killed a very few people and that led to the deaths of over 70 million.
Terrorism is not a new technique. As Ken Livingstone pointed out on Friday, its history goes back to at least the 19th century. The Cold War may have disguised a reality that terrorism is an integral part of city life. If so, maybe we should be finding better reactions that unleashing the Dogs of War.
Conan Doyle fans may recall that Sherlock Holmes had several encounters with shadowy “anarchist” organisations bent on destroying Victorian society. They have come under various guises to encompass their political or social aims. Anachists or the IRA, ETA, the Red Hand Gang, the Red Brigades, Bader Meinhoff and even the mafia in the USA were using the techniques of terror to simply get money.
For the most part the reaction has been to view these people as criminals. Churchill was criticed for over-reacting when he ordered naval guns to be used in the Seige of Sidney Street. The most extreme reaction so far was to a political murder. The killing of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarjevo by nationalists precipitated World War I and in turn that “unfinished business” re-erupted in 1939. The total killed in those two conflicts was over 70million.
Today the motives of the killers include a perverse interpretation of religion, seeking to punish those who insult their distortion of teachings by killing. That’s whether the reaction is against liberal interpretations of Islam like Bin Laden or his copycats or by the fundamentalist Christians in the USA who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors.
Let’s recognise that terrorism is not new, not confined to one religion, for a variety of motives and that its sole purpose is to get the survivors to change their behaviour or policies. There may be good reasons to change policies and this should be done if those are right, but not because of the terrorism. We must as a general rule not change our policies and not over-react. We have seen the result of over reaction in the past couple of years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Counter-oppression is the aim of terrorists because it feeds the cause of the discontent they exploit. Those 70 millions died in wars that started with a gunshot in Sarajevo. Let’s not let Bush take us further along that road.
The amount of explosives in each of the London bombs was very small and indicates controls have been effective in limiting the impact. Point out that the way the population of the USA can be protected is by common sense, vigilence and staying calm and resolute not to be affected. Bush has broken Iraq and ways must be found to fix those wounds before the US disengages but point out the best way to protect American cities was not to send the huge numbers of police and firemen who are in the US reserve forces to foreign lands in pursuit of lies. Challenge the propagandists when they mealy mouth about “attacking freedom”. The truth will set you free.
