International Contexts

Gill’s The Military, Political Violence and Impunity reminded me, especially in its opening pages, of an over-caffeinated vice president of the “Students for Socialism” club at the bi-weekly “rage against the machine meeting” at the grunge coffee shop near campus. “Nevertheless,  in the  aftermath of the [9-11] terror attacks, those who sought explanations in the history of U.S. global involvement were arrogantly dismissed for  allegedly suggesting that the country  somehow got what it  deserved.  ‘Nobody  deserves  terror,’  writes Argentine-born Ariel Dorfman, but ‘what we deserve, all of us, is some measure of justice’ (2002, 22)”. Gill goes on to ask pentagon generals who orchestrated international operations within Latin American countries (admittedly to benefit U.S. interests) to look themselves in the mirror as terrorist actors as well. These claims although extremely aggravating in style and presentation are based on a misconception that serves Gill’s thesis null. The comparison that the terrorist attack that the United States experienced on September 11th, 2001 are cut from the same cloth of the terrorist attacks that Latin American Nations experienced in years before is not accurate. This claim is first unsubstantiated on the basis that much of the U.S. operations in Latin America are classified. Although there is evidence to suggest U.S. involvement in propping up governments that would better serve U.S. interests, much of the violence that took place is only linked to U.S. operations in speculation. The key issue in Gill’s claim is depicted through motivation. Al Qaeda when orchestrating the 9-11 attack was motivated by its inherent wish to wipe the American culture, that extreme islamism deems evil, off the earth. Not only this, but Al Qaeda wanted to continue on its promise to kill americans not only overseas but on its domestic front to establish itself as an international terrorist organization who wants to impose extreme islamic law. Distinct instances of violence in politically unstable Latin American nations in the late 70’s 80’s and 90’s, whether they were in the best interest of the U.S. or not, were motivated by the hope for regime change. No terroristic violence is ever justifiable. This violence however, was not in the interest of murdering a nation’s innocent families or in hopes to fundamentally change its culture, heritage, or core values. These attacks were attempts to attain regime change in a politically unstable region amidst the backdrop of a cold war battle of ideology. Gill’s comments do not deserve reprise but rather belong in the mouths of who want to blame their stubbed toe on “the capitalist machine”.