We are constantly bombarded, no pun intended, with
images of bombings, executions, and other unimaginable terrorist acts.
Newspapers, magazines, TV programs, and other media fill their programs with
unspeakable acts of cruelty – man versus man. There is no lull in the
continuing slaughter of innocent people. The main culprits are fanatical people
who twist their religious beliefs to justify their actions. There is no letting up!
There is little agreement regarding what to do in response. The choices are limited, but time is running
out. So what are the choices?
· Some justify the barbaric actions of terrorists as
rooted in injustices and age-old grievances. They blame unemployment,
colonialism, revenge for the loss of family members, and intolerance of others
with different beliefs and culture. These people suggest that we should open-up
a dialog and work toward political accommodation.
· Others believe that the most appropriate way to combat
the spread of terrorism is to surround the cells wherever they are and destroy
them. The belief is that force must be met by force, and that the problem will
not go away until every terrorist is wiped out from the earth. Their assumption
is that this problem cannot be contained and/or resolved with half
measures.
· Another group sees the problem as a rite of
passage. Young disenchanted folks
performing unspeakable acts out of rage or deeply felt religious fervor. They
suggest that the solution rests among their midst, e.g., their elders, kinfolk,
or ethnic group. The problem is that the rite of passage has been going on for
more than 30 years.
Group Dynamics
Years ago, when I was studying group dynamics, I was
taught that groups respond to threats in three ways to defend themselves:
1.
Flight – they use logic and rationality to make the problem
go away or to reduce its threat. This
intellectual exercise satisfies the need to try to make sense of things we do
not fully understand.
2. Fight – they invoke the use of force to bring about
resolution to the problem confronting the group. By wiping out the threat, order is restored
and one can return to normalcy.
3. Flow – they use the proverbial California defense of "going
with the flow." This “whatever” response is an attempt at postponing dealing
with something with which you rather not.
The three strategies above mirror the three choices I
presented above. I guess my group dynamics lesson has not been repealed by
father time. Regardless of the choice one might advocate, it is crystal-clear
that we are stuck. We are
polishing the brass while the ship is sinking.
ISIS or ISL
ISIS or ISL
is a new phenomenon. They are a fundamentalist Sunni group attacking and
slaughtering other Sunnis and Shiites. They despise Christians and Jews. They
view others who believe differently as infidels who must be converted or
executed. They view everybody else as an enemy, an evil that cannot be
tolerated. Dogma is their god. Un-repentance is their style.
Bombing
them from the air is a way to keep them away, perhaps contain them, but is it
really the solution? Sending emissaries to try to negotiate with them has been
fruitless, except when we are willing to pay ransom for the release of our
captives. Hoping that the countries affected solve the problem has been also
ineffectual. So what else should we try?
I remember a quotation I heard from
Osama bin Laden, when commenting on his native culture: “A strong horse is better
than a weak horse.”
Is our
approach that of a strong horse or a weak one? You are the judge.
