Armies of Liberation

by Jane http://www.metimes.com/2K3/issue2003-47/methaus.htm

The “lesser” jihad, characterized by Bin Laden as obliterating half of humanity in the name of Islam, is described by Malise Ruthven (47) as an occasional obligation of Muslims applied in self-defense. George Bush is encouraging the “greater” jihad, the continuous inner struggle against evil, as he wages the War on Terror. While a physical goal is to disable terrorism, an ideological goal of the War on Terror is the affirmation of civilians’ rights as superior to the rights of warring parties. Many conflicts around the globe involve a traditional military force fighting “insurgents,” “gorillas,” “rebels” or “jihadists” who target civilians. Counter-terrorism measures often include repression of the host population; terrorism defines the field of modern combat as civilian homes. In the Israeli Palestinian conflict, selective applications of the theory of “civilian immunity” inversely justify the ideologies of the US and the Arabs.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of American states “no cause justifies terrorism (5).” Terrorism, murder by demographic profile, is antithetical to Americans. For fifty years prior to 9/11, Americans strongly rejected victimization by category and developed a minimum standard equality among white men, minorities, women, children, the disabled, homeless, homosexual, religious, unions and prisoners. America’s egalitarianism toward external populations evolved from Hiroshima 1945 (deliberately targeting civilians) to Baghdad 2003 (deliberately avoiding civilians).

Conversely, many Muslims view the targeting of Israeli civilians as acceptable. Raghida Dergham has recently stated: “Let us talk frankly and admit that a lot of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims implicitly support the suicide attacks against Israelis and consider them as the only available weapon to face Israel’s military supremacy…” As the editors of the Jerusalem Post have noted (13), the United Nations Commission on Terrorism is unable to define terrorism because of divergent views on targeting civilians and the 1998 Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism “distinguishes between terrorism and legitimate struggle against foreign occupation.” Randomly victimizing Muslim civilians in Riyadh, Al-Qaeda has swayed some Arab popular opinion against terrorism and toward civilian immunity according to the New York Times (MacFarquhar A1).

The US advocates for the rights of Israeli civilians; the Arabs advocate for the rights of Palestinian civilians. In response to the Intifada, the US sponsored Road Map for Peace links the rights and protections of Palestinian civilians to a third party, Palestinian terrorists. As Daniel Mandel has noted in the Middle East Quarterly (3), easing the suppression of Palestinian society occurs when Palestinian terror activities ends. Palestinian children’s rights are subordinate to the actions of their parents and contingent upon good self-governance. In the Islamic world, the abject degradation of Palestinian society is a source of great discord with the West. Many Arabs agree with the press release issued by the Gaza Community Mental Health Program: “American unconditional support of Israel…is hypocritical, evil and will continue to be a source of conflict with Arabs and Muslims.” Mainstream Muslims interpret Israeli self-defense measures as collective punishment: roadblocks, invasions, curfews, demolition of houses, confiscation by continuing settlements, 2500 civilian deaths, and the “apartheid” wall are viewed together as blatant social torture.

The US and the Arabs demand adherence to international norms of civilian immunity; Israeli and Palestinian leadership erode those norms because targeting civilians is effective. Chechnyan “rebels” gained media exposure by taking over a Moscow theater. Saddam Hussein shows the defense against an American smart bomb is a school full of children. “Soft target” bombings in Iraq have frightened away the United Nations, the Red Cross, additional coalition troops and numerous investors. By shielding themselves within the population, terrorists encourage the collective repression of their own people and thus further radicalization. In Iraq and Chechnya, as in Gaza, the consequences of targeting civilians are borne by civilians themselves.

An intellectually consistent position on the rights of civilians includes an objective view of both Israelis and Palestinians as equally deserving of protection. Presidential candidate Howard Dean was roundly denounced for suggesting a more “even-handed” US approach to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The Saudi Peace Proposal, the “unofficial” peace agreement, and the Geneva accords have been disparaged for advocating resettlement not repatriation, a cessation of terrorism, and recognition of Israel. The voices for peace are unable to find an audience among the parties under siege. At what point does the world airlift the children of the Holy Land away from the rage of their parents? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically recognizes the moral, religious and social traditions of foster parents, Kafalah of Islamic Law, previous declarations of Human Rights and the duty of States Parties: the right to remove, and the duty to parent, orphaned, neglected and endangered children.

In the absence of functional international institutions of conflict resolution, global mores against targeting civilians are challenged by those who both demand and deny civilian immunity. More moderate voices are ineffective, fragmented and drowned out. As Raghida Dergham notes: “That silent part in the popular Arab, Israeli, American and international base gives the impression that it blesses the controlling fundamentalism, simply because it refrains from testifying with a clear voice.”
Works Cited

Bush George. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Sept. 09, 2002. Nov 10, 2003
“Define Terrorism.” Editorial Jerusalem Post. Nov 09, 2003. Page 13.
Dergham Raghida. “There Is No Hope In Bush’s Commitments To Execute The ‘Vision’ Of the Palestinian State As Along (sic) As He Adopts Sharon’s Security Logic.” Dar al hayat. Nov 07, 2003.
Nov.09, 2003.
MacFarquhar Neil. “Among Saudis, Attack has Soured Qaeda Supporters.” New York Times. Nov 11, 2003: A1
Mandel David. “Four-Part Disharmony: The Quartet Maps Peace.” Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2003. Oct 23, 2003
“Press Release.” Gaza Community Mental Health Program. Nov 20, 2002. Sept 27, 2003
Ruthven, Malise. A Fury for God: the Islamists attack on America. London:
Grant Books, 2002

Roman Imperialism

Roman expansion from a city-state to a large empire was accomplished by countering aggression with a superior military force. Roman republican imperialism rose in response to attacks from enemies that surrounded Rome. Warring with their neighbors, by 264 BC Rome had conquered all of Italy with the exception of the north. Beginning in 264 BC, the Romans fought the Punic wars which ended with the destruction of Cartage in 146 BC, which became a Roman province called Africa. Rome then became countered the Macedonians to bring freedom to the Greek states, and in 148 BC, Macedonia became a Roman Province. The Greeks, who revolted against strict Roman policies, came under the control of the Roman governor of Macedonian in 146 BC. In 113 BC, Pergamum in Asia came under Roman control as well. Rome had conquered the Mediterranean, achieved an empire that included Italy, Sicily, Spain, North Africa, Macedon, Greece and western Asia Minor. The combined population exceeded fifty million. Octavian, known as Augustus, became the first Roman emperor in 27 BC and continued expansion by conquering the central Alps and expanding control of the Balkan Peninsula. Constantine divided the empire and built the eastern capital of Constantinople.

In the Republican period one method of achieving political stability among these conquered peoples was to enfranchise them into the Roman political system. Conquered peoples were made allies and permitted to be semi-autonomous. Colonies were established in conquered territories, settled by Romans and Latins, ensuring Roman political presence. Under the Roman Confederation, Latins were permitted Roman citizenship. Others were permitted autonomy to devise their internal political systems and leadership while allied with Rome. Allies were obligated to provide soldiers for the Roman army, enhancing its strength. Full Roman citizenship with its ensuing rights and privileges was a reward for loyalty. The Romans obtained also unity within the empire through the establishment of roads throughout the Roman Empire. A one hundred and eight thousand mile network through conquered lands ensured communication, military efficiency, physical unity and trade.

In the imperial period the management of the colonies was more firmly under control of the Roman emperors. In the imperial period Augustus directly assigned governors to some of the provinces. The appointments of those still under control of the senate were influenced by Augustus. Stability was achieved by a uniform political allegiance. In 212, the emperor Coracalla granted citizenship to every free person in the empire. A uniform imperial bureaucracy was established that reported to the emperor. In the third century, the civil service was further enlarged by Constantine. Economic coercion and loss of economic freedoms in the colonies was the result of the pressure to raise funds. Price controls were established and jobs became hereditary.

In the Republican period, the decision making was made by a small aristocratic group. The annual election of the consuls provided frequent changes in leadership, although power was remained vested in an aristocratic group. The Roman senate was a council of 300 elite elders whose pronouncements by the third century BC had the rule of law. The centuriate assembly of adult males represented the military interests with power concentrated among the wealthiest, the patricians. The council of the plebs was established in 471 BC to represent the large group of society excluded from power by the patricians. By 287 BC all Roman citizens were theoretically equal although an aristocratic class had emerged among select Patrician and Plebeian families. Internal stability was a fragile balance as the interests of the nobles were represented to the exclusion of other classes including small land owners.

In the age of imperialism, political power was vested in the emperor. Augustus permitted a partial restoration of the republic to satisfy the aristocratic class, but basically the authority of the senate shifted to the emperor. The military hierarchy and civil service were under the control of the emperor. Policy determinations were imperial decisions. An imperial bureaucracy was established.

The superior organization and tactics, as well as the tenacity of the Roman Army enabled additional expansion and crushed rebellions that arose. Values of duty, loyalty and obedience were a strong element of Roman culture and reinforced the predominance of the state over the needs of the individual. In the Roman republic, the centurate assembly represented the interests of the military. The military in the Republic previously comprised of and dominated by aristocratic landowners underwent a change under Marius in the first century BC. Marius, a Roman general, recruited landless urban and rural poor with a promise of land. This led to a system where armies were loyal to a particular general and an increasing use of the senate to pass laws for the benefit of individuals. A leader’s success depended on the support of the army. This rise in power vested in military leaders resulted in conflict and civil wars. Corruption, rivalry and power struggles weakened the military.

Augustus retained direct control of the army. Under the Severan rulers (193-235) the empowerment of the military led to “military monarchies” and civil wars. By the end of the second century, frontiers were established but due to the huge size of the empire, military forces were shifted in response to various threats. At this period, the empire covered three and a half million miles and held about fifty million people. Military anarchy with 22 emperors occurred in the period of 235-280. Due to invasions, civil war and plague, the population declined by one third. By the mid third century, the Romans were hiring Germans to military service, which did not have the Roman traditions, ideology or loyalty. Constantine 306-337 separated the civil and military bureaucracy. Each had a separate hierarchy reporting directly to the emperor. The military was enlarged to 500,000 and mobile units were established.

As the rule of law evolved, the power of paterfamilias declined. Paterfamilias, which maintained complete control within family units, reinforced the concept of duty to the state, hierarchy and stability. By the second century, the authority of paterfamilias had been significantly diminished. The Twelve Tablets of law of 450 BC evolved into civil law applied to Romans. In the early Roman Republic, praetors administered the law. A further evolution evoked “natural law” and a universal standard of justice that applied equally to all. A judicial system, administered by a praetor, was established in 264 BC to adjudicate civil disputes involving noncitizens. During the first century BC, the power of paterfamilias diminished. During the reign of Justinian, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century AD, Roman law was codified into “The Body of Civil Law,” which became the basis of western legal systems.

The fall of the western empire came late half of in the fourth century with pressure form invading German tribes. The Huns moved into Eastern Europe and the German Visigoths moved west and south as allies of the Romans but then revolted. In 410, Visigoths sacked Rome. The Vandals moved into southern Spain and Africa. Visigoths moved into Spain and Gaul. In 435 the Vandals sacked Rome. The eastern Byzantine Empire remained intact until 1453 when the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople.