|
Like
many of you, I can't help but think, "Whatever happened to the good old days
of plain, simple guerilla warfare?"
This
morning, as I slid the end through my Che Guevara Boyscout-style belt buckle,
I found myself wondering if Afghans one day will wear Osama bin Laden's face on
T-Shirts. After
a moment's deliberation, I decided that they would not. After all, Guevara was
a guerilla, not a terrorist. Besides, who's going to sell those T-shirts if their
anti-capitalist element becomes a focus and success? It's ironic enough that communist
Guevara has become such a trademark. So
the question is this: How will bin Laden be viewed by future generations? Guevara
won in Cuba, but it is teens in the states that sport his image above torn jeans
and bondage pants. The
key, then, is perception. We perceive Guevara to be a hero (in many respects),
but bin Laden to be a murderer. Bin Laden's followers, on the other hand, think
of themselves as guerilla fighters. The
difference, of course, is that a guerilla attacks military or tactical targets,
whilea terrorist targets civilians, usually in an attempt to create fear or confusion
among the masses. This,
clearly, is unacceptable. From a public relations standpoint, it's an out-and-out
nightmare. Even I find it impossible to find humor in the subject — and an
"off limits" sign as big as the one on terrorism should be proving impossible
for me to resist. Let me think. No. Nothing funny about that. Unless it happens
to the Saudis. And even then, it's no longer funny when we look at the reality.
When it did happen, civilians were killed. There's nothing noble about that. Yet,
I have no problem with guerillas, as long as they are fighting against an oppressive
military presence. As Americans, we owe a debt to guerillas. American revolutionaries
were groundbreakers in the field (or rather, off the fields) of unsystematic violent
confrontation. Things got even nastier during the American Civil War — sure,
they were Confederates, but a true patriot loves even those Americans who died
for the cause of dissolving the Union and continuing their enslavement of fellow
Americans. Guerilla warfare, though not as popular as Gandhi's crowd-pleasing
pacifism, helped bring an end to British Imperialism. And, although there are
certainly humanitarian problems with Castro's Cuba, it is impossible to deny that
the average Cuban is better off under Castro than Batista. Terrorists
really need to make their message more T-shirt friendly. Terrorists,
you see, just don't inspire the sympathy that guerillas, and yes, even pacifists
rouse. What they do is wildly amoral — whatever the motivation. You can stamp
the invitation, "Love Allah," but that won't win any Westerners, or
even most Muslims, to your side. The most deserving cause in the world is not
served by indiscriminant violence. Especially now that they're not even dying
themselves for their cause; in recent weeks they've moved to "off-site"
administration. That wouldn't have landed Che on a T-shirt. Which
is all the more reason to long for the good ol' days of 5-cent candy bars, drive-in
movie dates, and guerilla warfare. Guevara's first two rules of guerilla warfare
are downright inspiring: "Popular forces can win a war against the enemy."
Hopeful. "It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution
exist; the insurrection can create them." Proactive. If he were alive today,
perhaps he'd be on shelves next to Deepak Chopra, not Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. But
what of Qiao and Wang, our friends from the Red Army? Their work, "Unrestricted
Warfare," articulated not just the tactics, but also the ideals, of the terrorist
enemy. The general idea is that the enemies of America cannot limit themselves
to military confrontation, because America cannot be beaten on that level. On
top of that, America cannot understand military conflict outside of those boundaries.
It's
become very popular with what I call the "thinking" crowd since the
events of Sept. 11. It's a far better look into the mind of the enemy than the
Quran, Bill Maher's standup, or that Dixie Chicks album. Theoretically, (but prophetically,)
they wrote in 1999 that, "Whether it be a major explosion at the World Trade
Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency
band widths understood by the American military. The American military is naturally
inadequately prepared to deal with this type of enemy." And,
boy, were they right. Overheard
at a secure location, Sept. 12, 2002: "OK
boys, 14 Saudis just flew a plane into the World Trade Center! Can we find a way
to blame this on Iraq?" "I
don't think so, sir. There's ample evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with it." "Damn!
Quick, bomb Afghanistan!" So
far, score two for the generals. We
need to take this a step further, as well, if we are to truly understand why Osama's
face isn't likely to grace the runways anytime soon. While the authors of "Unrestricted
Warfare" classify terrorism alongside guerilla action as military tactics,
they still make the distinction. I certainly don't believe that's the case for
those around the world cheering the deaths of more Americans. If we look at it
from the Muslim fundamentalists point of view, things change. When one sees capitalism
as the enemy, there is no target more strategically tempting than the World Trade
Center. Ironically, or rather hypocritically, enough, multimillionaire bin Laden
claims to be vehemently against capitalism. So,
my one and only piece of friendly advice to the enemy: Stick to military targets,
for your own good. The ETA is considered one of Europe's most active guerilla
groups. But its most recent attack was no act of guerilla warfare — it was
terrorism, pure and simple. The Irish Republican Army and Shining Path have engaged
in both acts of terrorism and guerilla warfare. As a result, both have lost sympathy.
And the Palestine Liberation Organization? Even supportive bumper stickers won't
sport "your label." Maybe
the reason Clinton was able to avert massive terrorist attacks was simply his
skill with semantics. Anyone who could come up with that prophylactic in the ear
scenario can make these distinctions with far greater skill than I. Or
maybe the real problem is that nobody's won this war yet. Who was right usually
becomes evident once the winners take over. And it will probably be a long, long
time before anyone wins this one. Especially since nobody knows the rules. How
can they print up the team T-shirts when nobody even knows the game?
| 
advertisement
