In attempting to evaluate the events of the past six years, I feel it is necessary to first consider the basic question of human behavior and its determinants.
Theory: The most basic factor determining responses of living things to the environment is an integral component of each molecule of DNA. The sole purpose of that factor is to direct all environmental responses of the individual in a manner that will optimize survival of that individual and his or her particular DNA configuration.
This theory underlies all “normal” responses of plants to their environment and all “normal” behavior of animals to theirs. Thus, It is the essential determinant of basic biologic drives, beginning with survival of the individual and production of progeny. This concept is most readily observed by studying the adaptation of plants to their environment and plant reproduction. Every response is aimed at perpetuating the original DNA and it is only through selection (natural or engineered) that the path to this ultimate goal is modified. Tracing this concept through animal behavior becomes a bit more difficult and reaches a particularly high degree of complexity in analyzing human behavior. However, the transition from analysis of plant responses to animal behavior can be approached by studying the relative simple behavior of microorganisms starting with the virus. A virus consists of DNA within a protein jacket and its sole mission in life is to inject that DNA into a host cell where it will be replicated. Moving to simple animals and then on to more complex animal life, one can trace back nearly every component of behavior to survival of the individual and ultimately survival of the DNA.
Certainly human behavior is of greatest interest and with careful analysis, we can see how even complex aspects of this behavior lead back to the fundamental driver, DNA survival. This story will be explored in sections to follow and will include such topics as normal and aberrant behavior, basic life needs, sex and reproductive drives, pursuit of power and wealth, war and violence and other less confrontational social interactions. Particular attention will be paid to suicidal terrorism, perhaps the most extreme form of human aberrant behavior.
Before further considering behavioral aspects of this topic, we need to take a closer look at the concept of a “war on terror”. This terminology is, perhaps, not the best because terror is not a defined enemy, it is a tactic. The semantics of this terminology can present problems in communicating exactly what it is that the “war on terror” is attempting to achieve.
It might be more precise to refer to a “war on terrorists”, however, this is also a general designation and does not specify a specific enemy. Terrorists come and go like weeds in a garden. Weeds don’t only exist in one flower bed, they come and go in various beds all over the property. Sure you can kill off many but you never get them all and as soon as you let up they reappear almost over night. In other words, it’s a war that can never achieve absolute victory. As long as there are disenchanted individuals in the world, you have potential terrorists and as long as you have rouge organizations, you have groups that will recruit and utilize terrorists. Thus, the key question is - how should we, as a society wishing to live in a peaceful and civilized world, deal with this problem? Should our military, like an intrepid gardener pulling weeds on a daily basis, jump from hot spot to hot spot around the world seeking out terrorist groups or is there a more rational strategy to pursue?
Let’s consider our post-war experience in Iraq. As mighty as the U.S. military is, we have had great difficulty in suppressing terrorism in that, relatively small, part of the world. What might our options have been post 9/11?
My immediate thought, as I learned that the attack on 9/11 was a terrorist event conducted by radical Islamists, was that the only rational approach would be to first focus on defensive actions. First of all, secure all airline cockpits so that they were locked to prevent any entry from the passenger cabin. Second, temporarily ban entry of anyone from Islamic sections of the world, especially the middle east, until we had in place systems for differentiating radical Islamists from non-violent individuals wishing to come to this country for a variety of peaceful reasons. Thirdly, secure our borders so that no one enters the U.S. without being thoroughly screened. Next, thoroughly review the status of all non-citizens currently in the U.S. and immediately deport any whose intentions appear to be suspicious and finally, closely monitor the activities of Islamic groups in the U.S.to minimize the risk of “sleeper cells” development.
While I am sure much of this defensive strategy would be viewed as non-politically correct and bring strong protests from left-wing civil rights activists, a strong defense such as this is the only way to guarantee a reasonable level of protection against another 9/11-like event. The enemy does not wear identifying uniforms. To the contrary, they hide among normal peace-loving people and take advantage of the freedoms our country enjoys to do us harm. It would seem that rather drastic defensive measures would be needed to provide an effective shield from this threat.
Our government chose an alternate course of action, opting for an offensive strategy with the goal of defeating key terrorist groups and their supporters on battlegrounds in the Middle East coupled with less intrusive homeland security measures. To date, the strategy has succeeded in preventing additional terrorist attacks in the U.S. There have been a number of foiled attempts so one could say that our homeland defense has been either good or lucky. Currently, Iraq is the central battleground for the “war on terror” and we appear to be approaching a critical juncture. In conducting this campaign, the Bush administration has not only faced a difficult foe on the battleground but has also had to deal with increasing animosity on the home front led by political foes. It would appear that while many war critics are sincere, there are a substantial number who have seized upon this as an opportunity to damage the president in order to gain a political advantage in future elections. These are the disingenuous who wish, not only to damage the current administration, but who are also willing to secure the defeat of the U.S. in the “War on terror” as part of the price to pay for a political victory. These reprehensible individuals must surely recognize the nature of the struggle in the Middle East and realize that it is truly a test of wills. Which side will give in first and withdraw? The constant hammering and lack of support at home in the U.S. is probably the best weapon the terrorists have working for them. It’s sad that political objectives and the lust for power in the U.S. could be the decisive element leading us into a period of increased violence and suffering on U.S. soil.
Who are the terrorists? What are their goals? Do they really want to kill as many Americans, christians and jews as possible in attempting to achieve world-wide Islamic rule? While these and similar questions can lead to answers that sometimes appear to be paranoiac, there have been enough brutal acts and hateful rhetoric to justify almost any conclusion.
In considering current terrorism from the viewpoint of human behavior, several key aspects deserve further comment.
The principal factor that makes conducting a “war on terrorism” so difficult is the willingness of the terrorists to die themselves in order to achieve overall success for their cause. Such behavior is clearly aberrant in that individual survival is willingly sacrificed. Such a high degree of willingness to sacrifice one’s life usually has its origin in a deep religious conviction. This is, perhaps, the most dramatic example of the power that religious belief can have on humans, a power that can lead to evil as readily as it can lead to good. When individuals choose to come under the influence of such deep religious conviction, they relinquish their “god-given” ability to make rational decisions and to control their own lives. No behavior more clearly points out the destructiveness and irrationality of this choice than the suicide attacks of terrorists.
Pack behavior, another example of a behavior that can be both beneficial and harmful, fosters disdain and often hatred for other groups. The Islamists frequently refer to those not following their religion as infidels, in a manner that suggests they are regarded as being less worthy humans. Even many Christians firmly believe that non-Christians will not enter heaven and, thus, also regard them as less worthy humans. Aggressive pack behavior is easily incited and can lead to the kind of violence that is currently occurring between the Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Unfortunately, both of the above behavioral aberrations appear to characterize the Islamic terrorists that are our true enemy in this “war on terror”. I am convinced that the Islamic extremists are committed to achieving world-wide Islamic rule and are perfectly willing to kill and to use as much violence as necessary to achieve their goal. However, it is also important for us to recognize the incredible complexity of cultural, ethnic, social, political and historic factors that, in addition to very powerful religious elements, make resolution of the problems in the Middle-East so difficult. While the more moderate Muslims and the rest of the civilized world learn how to purge this extremism from our midst, the United States government should establish the strongest possible defense to avoid harm to our country and our citizens, including those measures previously described.
No comments:
Post a Comment