Adonis Diaries

Part one.  Let’s make sense: “How can I win war on “terrorism”? (Jan. 28, 2010)

            Terrorism is winning by default: people waging war on terrorism failed to make contact with people who have plenty of common sense: The players failed to communicate to people with common sense why they are fighting them; they failed to make sense for peace, security, working civil administration, freedom of opinions, and opportunities to learn and work.

            You are reading me: that’s good enough to me.  You have plenty of common sense, regardless of your inherited opinions gathered from your close community and the discrimination tendencies that you are subjected to. 

You have the luxury to read; if what you read make sense then you are doubly fortunate: You have the opportunity to connect, gather intelligence, dialogue, and discuss.  You are on firm ground to believe that mankind has the potential to think rationally when emotional weighty issues are respected as part of community heritage. 

            You read: you are very fortunate as an individual and fortunate that you live in a society that connects you with the outside world.  If you can transfer your imagination to remote rural regions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia then we are set to commune common sense.  

You are living in a region with no schools (at best religious schools teaching you how to read a Book); no presence of any State civil administration, no infrastructure for clean potable water coming to homes; no waste discharge facilities; no means to communicate with the outside world in your own language.  You are living within a close-knit tribal and clannish community that extends survival means and protection.  Are you with me so far?

            One morning, a drone drops bombs and missiles targeting “a terrorist” leader in your tribe, killing countless civilians.  How would you react?  The sky is conspiring to destabilize your peace and security; a “foreign” enemy is blatantly provoking you to kneel and submit to an idea or power that were not communicated to you:  all you know is what your community “preacher” has told you and who taught you at school.  Why should you submit to an opinion that you have no idea what it is and that does not relate to your current way of life? 

You do have plenty of common sense, but your “ghost” of an enemy is not revealing to you that he is endowed with any common sense.

            Your enemy (US military power) is a coward savage that cannot speak: he can only make war from a distance.  Hell, the sky is conspiring with an enemy that you have never seen his face or heard his voice.  There is total failure of communication.

Even if you care less about religion and the value system of your community you cannot help it but to fight this coward enemy playing ghost to frighten the bejesus out of your mind.

            Islamic extremists are winning by default: they are on the field and the enemy is in the air.  The enemy is setting foot on the moon and exploring the genesis of the Big Bang but he is scared to making eye contact with you: he is fighting you but failed to show up:  The enemy has no decency to tell you why he is fighting you; he could at least warn you or declare war!

            War on “terrorism” is a mental attitude: You cannot win this war if the people on the field are disconnected from the outside world.  If you failed to communicate in the language of the land, to learn the customs, and win first of all the State civil administrations, how can you start military campaigns of intimidation?  If the State civil administration is backward, corrupted, ignorant, and not willing to set foot in remote area then who is to communicate with tribal communities?

            The “terrorist” people didn’t declare war on you: you are doing what suits your ego trip as a superior race.  Time to differentiate between terrorist organizations and those poor and wretched people succumbing to internal obscurantism and external barbaric western military machine.

Part one set the foundations; part two will venture into details.  As I wrote in a previous article “The devil is Never in the details”