The "War" Against Ignorance and Intolerance
November 7, 2001; Revised October 30, 2002
Even the most ardent supporters of the U.S. as a defender of freedom, democracy, justice etc. would admit that the use of coercive force by the U.S. after W.W. II is analogous to the behavior of an elephant. The U.S. military and international police machine typically moves slowly, lumbers around, causes substantial collateral damage, and often does not achieve the goal it sets out to achieve. Moreover, because its actual decisions are mostly the outcome of democratic politics, its actions benefit the more influential pressure groups in the U.S., while damaging the less influential ones.
Most of the decisions to use U.S. coercive power are made in an atmosphere of pluralistic politics. Laws are often passed by only a slim majority of legislators. Because of the unbalanced influence of pressure groups, a majority of ordinary citizens may disapprove. Once laws are made, their administration is turned over to various highly bureaucratic government agencies that thrive on secrecy in spite of oversight committees and a freedom of information act. In the administration of armed forces, national security laws and police; the very nature of the mission makes the secrecy problem worse. The result is that a large majority of ordinary citizens and even the legislators do not become aware of the actions that are taken until long afterwards, if they become aware at all. When they discover some of these actions, they frequently express their strong disapproval. Examples are the bombing of Cambodia, arms-for-hostages, aid that props up military dictators who commit atrocities, and the attack on the medicine-producing factory in Sudan. It is not surprising, then, that the U.S. government, its military, and its various security agencies have made decisions that the vast majority of USers -- and most level-headed people in the world -- wish had not been made.
However, it is crucial to distinguish between these ordinary political decisions and those that occur in times of a widely perceived crisis. The best examples of the latter are W.W. II, the prolonged cold war against the oppression of Communism and its threat to world peace, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The use of coercive force by the U.S. government in these instances was supported by a very large majority of the population. Ordinary politics played a much smaller role. The U.S. people widely supported them, just as they widely support a strong reaction to the 2001 terrorist attack in the U.S. Such wide support is not limited to foreign policy.
The elephant metaphor helps explain why the makers of U.S. foreign policy are continually faced with a public relations dilemma. The people of the world naturally want a democratic government with the economic and military might of the U.S. to protect them from vicious dictators who aim to dominate the world and massacre civilians, from dictators who would impose oppressive political and economic systems in the name of ideology or religion, or from dictators who merely want to confiscate property that is rightfully owned by others. However, they cannot expect this to occur without, at the same time, exposing themselves to the collateral damage that decisions based on ordinary democratic politics brings.
There is a logic that supports the use of power by a democratic government to defend the most fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This logic, when applied to modern technology and the current geopolitical situation, explains the widespread support among U.S. citizens for some U.S. decisions, condemnation of others, and ignorance of still others.
Woefully Inadequate Grasp of World Political Economy
The men and women recruited by the terrorist organizations seem completely unaware of this logic. Yet many are quite literate and apparently well educated. If they knew history, if they had the ability to reason about social and political affairs, and if opponents of terrorism felt free to present counterarguments; these recruits could surely learn in some measure to distinguish the reasoning used by the clerics and other “representatives of God,” who promise eternal bliss, and that of the social scientists and philosopher who promote a world of democratic government and freedom of enterprise. But this is precisely the problem, in my view. The people recruited as terrorists, along with the millions who support them either actively or passively, have a woefully inadequate grasp of historical facts and are almost totally incapable of comprehending the complex geopolitical and economic situation that exists in the world today. Moreover, the words of their critics are viciously suppressed.
Why are ignorance and intolerance of criticism so prevalent? I think there are two reasons. The first is political. Practically all of the Muslim countries where indoctrination by religious clerics is widespread are either pure dictatorships or oligarchies. They are systems of privilege for the few and restrictions on privilege for the many. In the more wealthy Muslim countries, even the ordinary citizens are in the top 5 per cent of the world wealth distribution. Nevertheless, they lack political influence in their own countries. In dictatorships or oligarchies, the press is typically controlled and the schools teach both the "facts" and the means of interpreting facts that the government wants them to teach. Thus, dictatorship and oligarchy, which is used to muzzle freedom of speech and expression, is the first reason. The second factor is religion.
In most Muslim countries, the set of facts and means of interpreting them acquired by ordinary citizens are the result of an interplay between the political leaders and the clerics. Although there are a variety of Muslim sects and, therefore, a variety of clerical interpretations of the holy book — the Koran – a typical feature of Muslim countries is a reliance by political leaders on the clerics to mold ordinary citizens into obedient and passive compliants. Islam, as it is taught by such clerics, is a life of obedience to authority and dependence on the imagined will of a supreme being. It is not a life of exploration and inquiry into how to improve one’s earthly condition and the conditions of others. The result is ignorance and, for those whose actions challenge such teachings, intolerance.
What to Do?
This brings me to my main point. One should not view the "war" against terrorists that has been carried out for the last few years as the use of force to bring "evil-doers" to justice. It may indeed cause this to occur, although it will never resolve the conflict over the definition of justice. The "war" may even satisfy a thirst for vengeance that seems to be present in the minds of many U.S. citizens. But this view, it seems to me, is less penetrating than another I would like to present. I think that one should view the "war" as an effort to wake up the citizens of the world to the threat of ignorance and intolerance that exists by virtue of the control over knowledge by particular autocrats, oligarchs, and clerics. I have increasingly come to believe that this is the biggest threat to world peace and prosperity today.
The "war" I have in mind should be carried out against those who keep people ignorant and intolerant either because they themselves are ignorant and intolerant or because they aim to cling to power. Perhaps the most important weapon is education. The big question is how and whether education can penetrate the religious dictatorships and oligarchies.
I am uncertain of the answer to this question in general. However, for the extreme cases, the answer seems clear. If the leaders of the religious dictatorships or oligarchies cannot stop the wealth gained by their citizens through the world trading system from being used to attack that system or to help indoctrinate other people to do so, they should be excluded from that system. Beyond this, their existing wealth should be frozen until such time as they institute strong and verifiable measures to combat ignorance and intolerance. Nor should due process be an issue here. If there is any suspicion that a citizen of a dictatorship has helped to finance terrorism, he should be excluded from participating in the world trading system and his assets should be frozen. The burden of proof should be on him, since he is protected from the kind of investigation that would ordinarily take place if he lived in a healthy democracy with freedom of speech and media.
If, in the process of instituting the measures needed to bring about this result, the elephantine "world police" causes collateral damage; then that is the price that must be paid for a relatively peaceful world in which as many people as possible have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is, to be sure, the lesser of two evils and not a direct line to a perfect world. But, as I see it, in an imperfect world of the sort in which we now live, it is most productive line that one can take
.
Gunning’s Address
J. Patrick Gunning
Visiting Professor
U.S. Coast Guard Academy
Management Department
15 Mohegan Avenue
New London, CT 06320
Please send feedback: