The Terrorist "Radicalization" of the Tsarnaev Brothers
by GARY LEUPP
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/07/the-terrorist-radicalization-of-the-tsarnaev-brothers/
Where, how, when, why and by whom were the Tsarnaev brothers "radicalized"?
These are the questions mainstream journalism poses and strives to answer.
But one antonym of "radical"-"superficial"-describes this line of approach.
Leave aside the fact that "radicalization" is a vague, unhelpful concept
without any definite political or moral content, and that many of us have
been radicalized about various matters in appropriate, positive ways. In the
1960s, a sort of "radicalization" was a function of political awareness and
decency. (What was "radical" then-opposition to the Vietnam War, support for
Black Power, women's liberation, gay rights-is hardly controversial today.)
This use of language insults (leftist, Marxist, anti-imperialist) radicals
such as myself and posits implicitly a collaborationist "moderation" as the
desired norm. But the main problem with this approach is that it obfuscates
the real issue: how did the brothers come to believe that it was okay to
kill random civilians?
You Shouldn't Kill, But.
For most people it's difficult to fathom. What's more fundamental to the
social contract underlying human society than the rule, "You shall not
kill"? The principle is enshrined in all law codes and religious traditions.
Still, these same traditions allow, even sometimes mandate, exceptions.
The same Laws of Moses that state "You shall not kill" require the execution
of adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22) and any man "who lies with" other men
(Leviticus 20:13). Worse, the same god who sets down the law orders his
Chosen People to wipe out whole peoples. He obliges the Hebrew leader Joshua
to execute the "curse of destruction" on the city of Jericho: "man and
women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep and the donkeys,
slaughtering them all" (Joshua 6:21). The Lord of Hosts orders King Saul to
punish the Amalakites for deeds of their ancestors: "Now, go and crush
Amalek: put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses.
Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and donkey" (1 Samuel 15:3).
One could go on and on with such citations, but I do not mean to solely
target the Judeo-Christian tradition (or the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition, since these three Abrahamic faiths all draw upon Old Testament
myths and values). Pagans' moral codes similarly banned killing but with
various exceptions. The Vikings had firm laws against homicide within their
own communities. But when off on raids on the coasts of Britain, Ireland or
France they had no qualms about slaughtering at random. Going a-viking was
to take a break from the normal morals practiced around the fjords.
Normal domestic morality can contrast with the morality applied towards
outsiders. This was nicely illustrated in 1944 when 13% of people polled in
the U.S. declared that U.S. troops should "kill all Japanese." On just one
night in March 1945 U.S. forces killed 100,000 men, women and children in
Tokyo through conventional bombing. This was the calculated intention; Gen.
Curtis LeMay boasted of his desire to "scorch and boil and bake to death"
countless Japanese. (LeMay went on to become the vice-presidential candidate
on a ticket headed by segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace.) The
atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200,000 more.
Those ordering the strikes could justify in their own minds this deliberate
infliction of terror. Truman felt no qualms about dropping nukes on babies.
Why not?
Because they attacked us. So don't they deserve to be bombed?
Surely there were other factors at play, not least of which was racism,
which helps to explain the massive civilian death toll in the Korean,
Vietnam, Afghan and Iraq wars as well. It's easier to slaughter people if
you think them less human than you. My point is just that the notion of
collective guilt justified, and continues to justify, random butchery.
This willingness to conflate civilians and military, the guilty and the
innocent, by virtue of nationality, and to kill "man and women, young and
old," is a feature of terrorist mentality. We are accustomed to associating
it with "militant Islamists," "Muslim extremists." Some people associate it
with Islam in general, although one searches the Qur'an in vain for tales of
divinely ordered genocide such as those that occur in the Bible. But how
many innocent civilians have been killed by Muslim terrorist attacks in the
last century, and how many by U.S. bombs and U.S.-backed death squads?
Why Did the Tsarnaevs Come to Think It Was Right to Kill?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told his interrogators that he and his brother were
spurred to set off bombs in Boston on Marathon Monday by the U.S. wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. That this should be the catalyst is unsurprising. A
2003 UN-commissioned study found that the "War on Terror" was in fact
increasing terrorism. Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and
head of the International Crisis Group, noted the same thing in 2004: "The
unhappy truth is that the net result of the war on terror, so far at least,
has been more war and more terror." A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate
representing the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies stated that
the Iraq war had "made the overall terrorism problem worse."
Some become "terrorists" (or, in some cases, decide to take up arms against
U.S. occupiers and invaders, whom Washington and the Pentagon might regard
as terrorists-or "illegal combatants"-although we should feel free to
question such designations) because a loved one perished in a drone attack
or was tortured during interrogation. They are motivated by personal
vengeance and honor. Others see fellow Muslims somewhere victimized by the
U.S. and hear the call to jihad in some far-off country. Others opt to vent
their fury by blowing up random people in what they see as the belly of the
beast.
Let's imagine that the Tsarnaev brothers were indeed outraged by the things
that offend many normal people. Let's imagine that both came to see the war
in Iraq, raging from 2003 (when the boys were 9 and 16) to 2011 (when they
were 16 and 24) for what it really was: a war based on lies, producing over
100,000 civilian deaths. A horrendous war crime with enduring horrific
repercussions for which no one has ever been tried or held to account.
No doubt they saw the disgusting photos of the humiliation and torture of
Muslim prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad made public in 2004. They
could have made an impression on eleven and eighteen year old boys. Perhaps
they learned that such treatment of Muslim prisoners, most of them charged
with nothing and entirely innocent, was typical in Bagram in Afghanistan and
at Guantanamo as well. One can imagine some feelings of indignation.
Maybe they saw the cockpit gunsight footage of the Apache helicopter attack
over Baghdad in 2007, released by WikiLeaks in 2010, showing pilots and
ground crew cavalierly discussing the killing of a dozen innocent Iraqi men
including two Reuters employees. "Come on, let us shoot!" shouts someone
requesting permission to fire as a van pulls up. The shooting resumes,
injuring two children who were being driven to school. "Well, it's their
fault for bringing their kids into a battle," one pilot says.
Maybe they were outraged, like regular decent folks, at the gunners'
bloodlust (maybe bolstered by the false belief that they were avenging the
9/11 victims). That outrage itself would have been entirely appropriate,
would it have not?
Who is an Innocent Civilian?
Of course one should distinguish between those responsible for all these
crimes and the people of this country, like you and me. That's indeed our
premise in asking: how did these young men ever come to think otherwise?
But the distinction between the culpable regime and the innocent "American
people" becomes muddied when you read polls showing that as recently as
March 42% of the people in the U.S. believe the Iraq War was "not a
mistake," while (only) 53% believe otherwise. That forty-two percent of the
U.S. adult population is roughly one hundred million people. Their opinions
shouldn't damn them; they are in any case largely shaped by the mass media,
the pulpit and their own ignorance. But the fact that there is so much
popular support at any particular time for U.S. atrocities among the people
of this country (and sometimes it is overwhelming!) must make many around
the world question the presumption of our collective innocence.
Why, they surely ask, do the Americans enjoying the "freedom" to participate
in elections, always elect these people who attack, invade and bomb us? Why
do they not drive them from power when they do? Why do they instead re-elect
them, and never prosecute any leaders for war crimes? If their government is
really "theirs"-freely chosen and supported-are they not our enemies as much
as their leaders?
(By the way: is it not also an outrage that these polls in the aftermath of
wars, including those in Vietnam and Iraq, always give the respondent the
two options "mistake?" or "not a mistake"? Those responsible for war are
thus assumed to have had good intentions. There is no way to respond: "I
believe it was a calculated crime." This tells the world something about
U.S. capacity for self-criticism.)
The distinction between regime and people also blurs when you read that 65%
of U.S. residents polled support the drone strikes producing more terror in
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. Or even when you go to Fenway Park
in Boston, just wanting to enjoy the baseball, and are forced to listen to
the requisite tributes to "our heroes" supposedly "defending our freedoms,"
and note the enthusiastic crowd response to any mention of "our men and
women in uniform." Must it not sound to many like applause for the slaughter
of innocents?
And mustn't the sight of crowds of flag-wavers chanting USA! USA! USA!,
aggressively affirming their pride in "their" country (uniting implicitly
with the 1% who actually control this country) send chills down any
conscious person's spine? This after all sounds very much like this.
One might compassionately think, "Well, these people are ignorant,
brainwashed." Or one might think, these people are just evil. If you are a
Muslim, part of a community under constant surveillance and suspicion, you
might see every unprovoked U.S. killing of Muslims abroad as an attack on
yourself. Is not mindless U.S. patriotism and knee-jerk support for each new
war also a threat to yourself? How then to respond?
The U.S. responded to an attack on itself by some Muslims twelve years ago
by attacking numerous Muslims with no connection to the attack. The ongoing
slaughter in Afghanistan has nothing to do with al-Qaeda and 9/11 but is
rather an effort to contain the resurgent Taliban (who are not and never
were the same as al-Qaeda) and aligned forces fighting to topple the
U.S.-imposed, highly corrupt, unpopular Karzai regime. In this effort, as in
Iraq, U.S. forces are killing civilians with impunity.
The moral question thus arises: If George W. Bush could slaughter Iraqi
civilians in the name of fighting Muslim extremism, and if Barack Obama can
bomb innocents in several Muslim countries virtually at will, why can't
Muslims kill U.S. civilians in the name of fighting back? Isn't it a matter
of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," as it says in the Bible (Exodus
21:24; see also the Qur'an 2:178)? At some point the older brother seems to
have concluded precisely thus.
One should mention that there's actually a difference between the tribal
mentality "us vs. them" and the "eye for an eye" principle. The latter was
apparently intended to curb the practice of indiscriminate and
disproportionate revenge. Rather than killing everyone in the neighboring
village for the death of one of your own at the hands of one of theirs, you
just kill one and call it even. (I won't digress on the irony involved in
the fact that contemporary Israeli leaders, in effect rejecting Exodus
21:24, boast of their deliberately "disproportionate responses" to any
attack on themselves. It is an effort to terrify all foes.)
In the history of religion one sees a further evolution from this "eye for
an eye" principle to the (arguably higher) principle of forgiveness. Thus we
find in the Buddhist Dhammapada:
"How will hate leave him if a man forever thinks,
'He abused me, he hit me, he defeated me, he robbed me'?
Will hate ever touch him if he does not think,
'He abused me, he hit me, he defeated me, he robbed me'?
There is only one eternal law:
Hate never destroys hate: only love does."
And of course Jesus is supposed to have said (Matthew 5:38):
"You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I
say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if
someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well." In the
theology of St. Paul, the "New Law" of Christian forgiveness supersedes the
"Old Law" of retribution of Mosaic law.
But such refined thoughts have rarely impacted the behavior of modern
states. Indeed the rule has been: "Isn't it ok to make them feel our pain-by
killing their children, so rich in hope and promise, shattering their peace
of mind as they go about their lives, actively or just tacitly supporting
their government that has provoked us?" That's how Gen. Curtis LeMay felt,
surely, in waging his war without mercy. I think this is how the Tsarnaevs
also came to feel.
Some Comparisons
On April 15, the brothers' bombs killed two young women and a little boy,
occasioning a national outpouring of grief and countless tributes to the
imagined bravery of we Bostonians and the heroism of local police.
On that same day in Baghdad, according to Iraq Body Count, 30 civilians were
killed by car bombs and IEDs for reasons directly connected to the U.S.
invasion and occupation. In all 62 were killed in Iraq by bombs or gunfire
for such reasons, just another typical day in that wrecked country.
On the same day, nine Afghan civilians were killed in the ongoing civil war
sparked by the invasion and occupation. A roadside bomb killed seven. Four
were killed by an IED the next day. A week before U.S. airstrikes had killed
17 civilians including 12 children in Kunar province; the public clamor
forced President Karzai to order U.S. special forces out of the province.
According to NATO, 475 civilians were killed in the Afghan conflict from
January to March of this year. In Iraq, 561 civilians were killed in
bombings or shootings in April alone. Such is the magnitude of suffering
inflicted by U.S. imperialism on just these two countries within the Muslim
world. Meanwhile Libya is worse off then ever after getting "liberated" by
U.S.-NATO bombing; Mali suffers from the fallout of the Libya intervention;
Syria and Iran remain in the U.S. crosshairs; and in Yemen resentment
smolders at the drone strikes (up to 54 in April alone).
Some Muslim clerics-one must stress, a tiny minority-look at this big
picture and say, "Islam is under attack from the U.S. It is our religious
obligation to defend our brothers and sisters. Since we cannot defeat this
enemy through conventional ways, we must use terror to make them realize
there is a price for their own terror." It is precisely the sentiment
conveyed by an unknown Hebrew poet two and a half millennia ago, in venting
his rage against the Babylonians who'd conquered and dispersed his people:
Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction,
A blessing on anyone
Who treats you as you treated us,
A blessing on anyone who seizes your babies
And shatters them against a rock!
Spine-chilling you say? Yet it is, for Jews and Christians, Holy Writ: the
ending of Psalm 137:8-9. And you will find no end of Jewish and Christian
cleric-bloggers who jump to its defense. "One of the unsurpassed biblical
hymns of all time," says one. "Nowhere does it say that God approves of the
Psalmist's request," writes another, " or that he fulfilled it. Just
because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn't mean
it was approved by God." Another writes: "Now the psalmist says that soon
someone will destroy Babylon. He was right!" Others write that the poet is
simply expressing satisfaction that prophecy will be fulfilled.
An Eye for an Eye, Including Your Baby's
But there's really no question that this justifies mass-murder, or at least
surely did, for some people, for a period of time. It is more than "an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It's "the eye or the tooth of any of your
people including the innocent child" or rather an expression of the notion
that there are no "innocents" in this great conflict between the People of
God and their enemies. There is no great leap between this (sick) mentality
and that of the occasional Islamic imam who depicts everyone in this country
as an appropriate target.
But did the Tsarnaevs need some sort of religious-political mentor (the
mysterious Misha, William Plotnikov, Mansur Nidal, Awlaki) to make the leap
from mere outrage to the righteous shattering of babies against the rock?
Or was the moral model already at hand, there in the wars based on lies, in
the Abu Ghraib photos, the Blackwater Baghdad murders of Sept. 2007, the
Baghdad collateral murder video?
"It's their fault for bringing their kids," said the pilot in the leaked
video, proud to have picked off eight Iraqis. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, proud to
have killed three Bostonians, might say with precisely the same degree of
moral legitimacy, "It's their fault for attacking Muslim kids!"
To fail to understand this is to invite the endless exchange of eyes for
eyes and teeth for teeth. One senses this was what Osama bin Laden wanted
when he planned or approved the 9/11 attacks. He reasoned that the U.S.
would launch a general crusade, including attacks on targets with nothing to
do with al-Qaeda (like Iraq) thereby uniting more Muslims in hostility to
itself. Prompting more terrorism, it would respond with more, begetting more
in response, and so on, polarizing the world, drawing an ever firmer line
between the west and a revived Islam with visions of a new global Caliphate.
Could he have imagined that two irreligious Avar-Chechen boys from Kirgizia,
growing up in the U.S., would ever climb aboard the jihadi-terrorist
bandwagon?
He probably wouldn't have been surprised, supposing that the course of
events itself would "radicalize" those hitherto apathetic. An online
al-Qaeda publication reportedly urges supporters in western countries to
stay at home and take action in their own countries. The current leaders
probably think that exploits like the Marathon bombing will sharpen the
sense of "us vs. them," produce anti-Muslim backlashes, leading to more
violence within clearer battle lines, paving the way to ultimate victory.
The vision, while insane and impossible, acquires more resonance with each
new report of a Muslim civilian death at U.S. hands.
Radicalized Here or There? What Difference Does It Make?
Gandhi is supposed to have said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world
blind." The even more primitive "us vs. them" mentality has long since
blinded most of the political class and the mainstream media.
In the face of the Boston tragedy, all they can ask is, "Were the boys
radicalized abroad? Or did it happen here?" Rephrased: Was their decision to
express their outrage at the Iraq and Afghan wars through terrorism
something implanted in their minds by Muslims met abroad, in dangerous
mosques in Dagestan or Chechnya? Or did it stem from their own failure to
assimilate into U.S. society, and a hatred towards this country rooted in
their own hereditary religion? Either way the issue becomes merely us versus
"radical Islam"-leaving the wars unmentioned, as though they played only a
marginal role in the boys' "radicalization."
The blind are leading the blind. George W. Bush's instinct the day of 9/11
was to attack Iraq! and to declare an indefinite "War on Terror" against
anyone who could be smeared with the charge of supporting "terrorists" or
pursuing WMD programs. Never mind that these are very different phenomena in
themselves, or that the U.S. supports terrorists on occasion and also
maintains half the world's nuclear arsenal. While insisting publicly that
the U.S. was not against Islam (gosh, he wondered, why would anyone think
that?) Bush used ignorant anti-Muslim sentiment to garner support for his
war on Iraq, depicting that war as one of response to 9/11.
"You're for us or against us," he bellowed, obviously and shamelessly
invoking Jesus' statement "Anyone who is not with me is against me" (Matthew
12:30), to divide the world in two. Obama has not stepped back from that
crude Manicheanism. He criticized the Iraq War as a "strategic blunder" but
has never questioned the morality of using the "us versus them" mentality to
garner support for that criminal act. Instead he has praised Iraq War vets
as "heroes" and pointedly declined to direct the Justice Department to
pursue any charges against officials responsible for a criminal war.
He has always embraced the invasion of Afghanistan, sharply escalating it
while terrorizing the people of neighboring Pakistan presumed collectively
responsible for aiding the Taliban(s) that now flourish in both countries.
He contemplates attacks on targets in Syria, Iran, perhaps Mali, that pose
no more threat to you or me than Saddam's imagined WMDs.
Much of humankind sees all this. It is not blinded. It looks on in unease if
not horror at the scale and impunity of U.S. violence. If it becomes
radicalized (in a positive life-affirming way), it is not by religion or a
passion for holy war, but by natural human revulsion at the antics of a
wounded Cyclops-the one-eyed monster that is twenty-first century U.S.
imperialism.
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a
secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of
Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male
Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial
Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a
contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK
Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
No comments:
Post a Comment