Media Root of Modern Terrorism
“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
--Malcolm X
As I'm in my media analysis mood, I will venture a piece on the genesis of modern terrorism, as I see it.
It was not exactly an instance of violence as protest, but I believe the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City provided terrorists the first glimpse of the power of the media to portray and disseminate a message of protest. The moment was when Tommie Smith and John Carlos--the black U.S. sprinters who had won the gold and bronze medals, respectively--raised their fists in a Black Power salute as the U.S. national anthem was being played.
Immediately, the Palestinians realized the potential of this untapped tool, the electronic media, and began planning the 1972 Olympic operation in Munich. The rest is a sad history.
Terrorism is cheap, and the cost effectiveness is enhanced by the free communications and media coverage provided by the target. In 1972, the target was not solely the Israeli athletes, so much as world opinion--that larger audience beyond the target. Surprisingly, the Palestinians garnered worldwide sympathy for their cause after they murdered the Jewish athletes.
The only thing that has changed with terrorism since 1972 is the evolving nature of their sponsorship.
There was a time when terrorism was considered state- or non-state sponsored. It is no longer state-sponsorship as such, but unofficial and semi-official proxies of the government which supply support to these groups. The state/non-state etiology is still applied by the Department of State, but with the evolution of support transitioning into the religious realm, state sponsorship is now veiled. However, it is still a factor influencing and directing Islamic extremism.
Iraq used to pay a bonus to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Saudi Arabia pays Palestinians to stay out of S.A. Iran funds and trains Hezbollah. Pakistan supports Al Quaida through the ISI. Jordan and Egypt provide funds, intel and weapons to Sunnis in Iraq. This is but a gross overview to indicate the web of complexity surrounding the problem, which is ignored by a blunt U.S. policy.
When 9-11 occurred, the responsible agency was Al Quaida, a group which had previous alliances with and training provided by the CIA and Pakistan's ISI. The monetary and personnel basis of Al Quaida is Saudi primarily, with Egyptian participation. Surely the Taliban provided safe haven. But only an idiot would believe the bin Laden family is not also financing Osama, or that the family does not have the unofficial blessing of the house of Saud.
Clearly there's a judgment call here: does the U.S. go after nuclear Pakistan, oil-rich Saudi Arabia or our Egyptian partners? Or none of these, and simply focus on prosecuting individuals within the terrorist cells, knowing that members are a renewable resource.
Invading Afganstan might eliminate a safe haven, but what has it done to address the larger issues? The Taliban is not the threat to America. The threat is Al Quaida and its sponsorship by long-term U.S. allies. That reality is being ignored in GWB's ill-conceived War on Terror. It is a palliative approach to a manifestation, rather than a routing out of the disease process which produced the visible illness.
U.S. policy should address the disease and not the symptoms.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:33 AM
2 Comments:
outstanding blog that I just discovered today. some caveats on this post, though. you may be right that the black power fist pumping at the Olympics in 1968 pointed out the Olympics as a media-genic event, but I'd like to just pull off the top of my head some more powerful antecedents to the Palestinian use of terror:
1. It worked for the soon-to-be-Israelis in Palestine in the 1940s, in kicking out the British and many of the original residents.
2. It worked for the Algerians in the 1950s+ in kicking out the French.
3. Hadn't Leni Riefenstahl (and the filmmakers behind the also quite stunning documentary of the 1960 Tokyo Olympics) already shown what wonderful propaganda use could be made of Olympic footage? Not, I suppose, that these films enjoyed a lot of play in Palestinian refugee camps, or wherever the American athletes who sprinted in Mexico City grew up.
What happened in Mexico City was a pretty benign and appropriate gesture of protest that I don't think should be remotely equated with what happened in Munich, which was indeed beyond grotesque. Use of nonviolence on a world stage does not make one responsible for the later use of violence on that stage, just because it helped someone violent notice that it was a stage.
And I'm only 43, and not in least bit tolerant of 68ers who think it was ok to stop thinking then. I.e., some believe all wars are wrong. I don't believe that; I believe in Clausewitz.
anon.,
Your comments in pts. 1 & 2 are historically valid, but the operations were not generally aimed at achieving world media attention. The operations were more mission-oriented, to achieve local success. Ditto point three on Riefenstahl, and one could say the same of Stalin's propagandists, et. al.
I contend there was something unique in the '68 protest, which resonated far beyond those athletes' intentions. Not that I feel that the athletes were responsible for the violence of '72.
What set their protest, and the resultant coverage, apart was the apparent sponteneity of it, and the victimology of it (the athletes stood in head bowed stance, without shoes, to indicate the oppressed stature of their people.)
It was simply taken one step further by the Palestinians. From the athlete's perspective, I'm sure they felt their actions were justified, and again, their protest did not enter the realm of terrorism. But it showed that an "oppressed" people can make their voice heard, even when they speak no words, providing the camera picks up on their actions.
Terrorism is often, though not exclusively, the tool of the disenfranchised with nothing left to lose. It is often a tactic of desperation.
Obviously, I do not believe all wars are wrong. But wars should address and solve problems, rather than causing greater problems to the hapless taxpayers funding them.
Post a Comment
<< Home