Terrorism is becoming a major force in the world, as evidenced by Clinton actually referring to the use of nuclear, biological and chemical devices in the U.S. I’ve thought their use against U.S. targets was an inevitability for years. But with the U.S. government launching its own terror strikes against Third World targets, the inevitable is starting to look imminent. Let’s put it this way: Living in Washington, New York or other population centers is not terribly prudent.
Goodness, that sounds apocalyptic. Perhaps I should tone this article down a bit? I think not. In fact, you’re probably asking yourself about the title to this article. Isn’t it going just a bit too far? And, anyway, how can anyone possibly do such a thing? Well, I’m convinced terror will rule in the next few years, so you’ll have to relate to it somehow – like it or not. If you prepare now – which basically means to liquidate, consolidate and intelligently speculate – then you’ll be able to take advantage of the values that will occur in the coming months and years. Good luck, and good hunting.
Doug Casey’s International Speculator, September 8, 1998, “Learn to Make Terror Your Friend”
Since the late and unlamented passing of the Soviet Union, and indeed since WWI, the U.S. government has gotten into the habit of sending troops to small, poor, relatively primitive countries – Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq and Somalia being just a few recent examples. Some groups are truly unhappy about it, and grudges are held for a long time in the Third World. The only practical way they can strike back is through what’s commonly called “terrorism.”
There’s an old saying: “I’m a freedom fighter. You’re a rebel. He’s a terrorist.” Terrorism presses such an emotional hot button today that few can calm down enough to even define the term; but unless crucial words are precisely and accurately defined it’s impossible for one person to know what another is talking about. Unfortunately, people – especially when they’re talking politics – often use the same word to mean entirely different things, and when emotions run high there’s unlikely to be a reasoned definition of terms. You can easily get an unpleasant “failure to communicate.”
No wonder. Barron’s Concise says terrorism is “the use of violence or threats to achieve political objectives by intimidating others, undertaken by those with extremely strong religious or political beliefs and who may welcome martyrdom in pursuit of their goals.” That definition seems to imply terrorism is really a code word for Islamic fundamentalist.” Webster’s New World Dictionary says terrorism is “the use of force or threats to intimidate, especially as a political policy.” This is at once a briefer and better definition, but it implies all governments engage in terrorism daily against their own citizens – which may be accurate but is not the word’s usual connotation. I’m sure there are almost as many definitions of this controversial word as there are dictionaries. But that’s a subject for another day.
I suggest a good definition of terrorism might be: “an act of wholesale violence, for political ends, which deliberately targets civilians.” The way the word is used by governments, however, it usually means: “A wholesale act of violence, for political ends, committed without the sanction of a government they recognize.” More recently the term “state terrorism” has gained currency, and it might be defined as “an act of terrorism (choose your definition) committed by a state.” I’m tempted to examine some well-known historic examples, but it truly is too much of a hot button for too many people.
It’s enough to say that we’re likely to see lots more terrorism, real, imagined and mis-defined, in the United States in the future because it’s the most cost-effective way to strike out against an enemy. Think of some well-known examples of terrorism and decide which definition you prefer.
I’ve held for years that if America were a true free-market society, and the federal government didn’t exist, defense would be a non-problem. Let’s set up a worst-case scenario: The 4 million-strong People’s Liberation Army lands on the West coast. After they easily overcome the surfers, our first line of defense, a general might approach a sunbather and demand “take me to your leader,” whereupon he would take him home and introduce him to his wife. My guess is that after a month, 80 percent of the army would have deserted to open McDonald’s franchises, and the other 20 percent would be hunted down as common criminals. It’s impossible to conquer a free society of 275 million people who are armed and want to protect their own property. It’s fairly easy, however, if they’re all whipped dogs taking orders from Washington. Then, all you have to do is get Washington to roll over.
