[iwar] On the Nature of a Response

From: Tony Bartoletti (azb@llnl.gov)
Date: 2001-09-13 16:56:32
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:How-Islamic-World-Learnt-To-Hate-The-US]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:'Hacktivism'-Spike-Expected-Following-US-Retaliations]"
Next in thread: Glenn Williamson: "RE: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response"
Reply: Glenn Williamson: "RE: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010913141517.00b182a0@poptop.llnl.gov>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
From: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:56:32 -0700
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I find I have been unusually quiet these past few days, for I tend to write 
only after having given careful consideration to my thoughts, their motives 
and implications.

I must commend Fred (again) for his seemingly inexhaustible effort to 
gather and distribute commentaries on Tuesday's horrible events, and more 
so in providing an even-handed forum in the representation of responses.

In particular, I found the posting labeled:

     "Reposting-of-a-summary-of-global-media-regarding-the-attacks-on-New-York-and-DC"

to be especially revealing, as it contains excerpts from the medias of over 
fifty countries or regions, multiplied in many cases by individual excerpts 
from the left, right and centric sources.  If I were a civics teacher, this 
would be "required reading."

One is struck by the virtual unanimity of condemnation for the murderous 
attacks upon civilians, upon innocents, and especially among the "western" 
nations, upon the symbols and infrastructure of civilized commerce and the 
defense forces of democracy.  Beyond this, however, one sees in the choice 
of words used either appeals to nationalism or globalism, and (perhaps 
somewhat cynically on my part) either an eagerness to exploit these events 
to project power for various agendas, or to step away from the perceived 
line-of-fire of a military response.  Of course, as one surveys the 
responses from the NATO nations and then outward, one sees a natural 
decrease in the language of retribution, and an increase in efforts to 
explain, if not justify, the motivations behind that which defies 
justification.

Allow me to digress a moment:  I do not support capital punishment, for any 
crime.

I happen to believe that the only justification for killing another is when 
the failure to apply deadly force would reasonably and imminently lead to 
one's own death or grave injury, or those of others so threatened.  To 
coldly execute even Timothy McVeigh, once he is securely held in a position 
of powerlessness, is simply to promote the concept that "killing is OK if 
you are upset enough."  It is not, and cannot be a civilized and humane 
response to any act.

I hear much rhetoric implying how the perpetrators of this atrocity shall 
be "punished", and headlines that, it would seem, are intended to strike 
the fear of retribution in the hearts of these maniacs.  Even I have given 
in to such terminology, but it really does not serve the cause of humanity 
or civility.  I suppose that, in some fashion, the extremists of "Radical 
Islam" are behind this attack.  From what I understand, they will not be at 
all frightened by the rhetoric, or the fact of their imminent destruction, 
or the incineration of their neighbors, friend or foe.  In their minds, 
such "retribution" will simply expedite their own arrival in heaven, and 
that of their foes to some other place.  The rhetoric of "pain-for-pain" 
will not affect them, and only serves to harden the hearts and inflame the 
passions of the peace-loving and civilized world.

I consider myself exceedingly tolerant of religious diversity, and I am 
often dismayed at how many of the non-Judeo/Christian sects are 
marginalized in this country, founded as it is upon freedom of 
worship.  And I would hesitate to have any government or world-order given 
charge to "define" what is legitimate religious belief.  But the world 
community must stand behind certain principles, despite religious 
belief.  Universally, no sect that practices human sacrifice should be 
given status as a recognized religious endeavor.

Above all, these terrorists should not be considered religious, or (truly) 
Islamic, by any measure.  They are akin to a cancer that has erupted in the 
body of the world, and I think it provides a great deal of clarity if this 
analogy is pursued.  There is always debate over the causes of cancer.  Is 
it spontaneous? Genetic predisposition?  Is it triggered by one's 
lifestyle, environment, etc.?  These issues must eventually be examined 
with renewed purpose.  But when gripped with cancer, we charge the 
physician first and foremost with the task of its elimination, and by the 
means LEAST intrusive and destructive.

Take note:  When the physician sets to destroy or excise cancerous cells, 
she does not pretend to be "punishing" those cells, or sending them a 
message, or exacting retribution for the damage they have caused.  Nor 
would we want her to, lest more damage be done in the process.  For those 
cells are mindless killers, and deserving only of a cold and clinical 
elimination.

Precisely how we determine the extent of culpability in Tuesday's 
catastrophe, and how we respond to it, will serve to define the term 
"civilization" for this new century, and that is not something that should 
be done with haste for the sake of short-term gratification.  Certainly, a 
relentless effort to identify and eliminate terrorism should be undertaken 
collectively by all of the peace-loving peoples of this world.  This must 
include, by some extension, not only those whose hand literally carry out 
such acts, but those who knowingly fund or support, give guidance, comfort, 
or shelter such activities.

Does this indict all of "Radical Islam"?  I don't know.  The 
Taleban?  Again, I don't know, although I am no fan of any religions that 
seem to treat women as some kind of sub-human species, for their own 
"protection" (as a rancher might protect his cattle.)

Unfortunately, the U.S. public, and the NATO alliance, will likely not be 
satisfied with a quiet and surgical excision of the cancer that has taken 
us.  And understand, I do support whatever level of force will be required 
to "coerce" those governments that do not fall vigorously in line with the 
effort to eradicate this scourge.

But we cannot demonstrate that America is the greatest nation on earth, or 
that freedom and democracy are the greatest ideals on earth, by dropping 
the greatest bombs on earth.

And finally, although it turned even my stomach to see crowds cheering in 
celebration of Tuesday's tragedy, these are in some sense the people most 
deserving of our pity.  They were not born this way, to hate us, or to 
cheer death.  The world is ripe with the oppressed, with powerless 
populations in misery.  It would be very sad if these people, their lives 
and aspirations, are turned into some kind of "counter sacrifice" to the 
lives that were lost in New York and Washington this week.


___tony___




Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get VeriSign's FREE GUIDE: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Learn about using SSL for serious online security. Click Here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/LgMkJD/I56CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:How-Islamic-World-Learnt-To-Hate-The-US]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:'Hacktivism'-Spike-Expected-Following-US-Retaliations]"
Next in thread: Glenn Williamson: "RE: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response"
Reply: Glenn Williamson: "RE: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:43 PDT