* RERUN *[Compiled and distributed 8-19-02 ]<

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[ Subject Category: Peace, Foreign Policy,
Justice, War and Terrorism]

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published
since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war".

How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism November 27, 2001

While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William
Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The
trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither.
(Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an
attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism
then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism".

It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism.

But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current
policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear
goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or
require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for
the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all"
we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September
20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our
first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the
contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of
Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and
humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes.

In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of
Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of
Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to
heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in
some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Roger Larson