Yes

by Andy Heintz

Created on: August 28, 2008

The spread of democracy will lessen terrorism in the world, but it will not stop it. Terrorism will not be significantly decreased until people begin embracing reason and morality while rejecting militant religions, outdated traditions, greed, and absolutist ideologies.

Many of us differ about what makes a person a terrorist. U.S. government officials labeled the Viet-Cong as terrorists, but many people in Vietnam considered them freedom fighters and viewed the U.S. as the enemy. Ronald Reagan put Nelson Mandela on the U.S. terrorism list while comparing the vicious Contras to our founding fathers and arming the brutal Guatemalan and Salvadoran armies who were guilty of several atrocities against their civilian populations.

Why were the Nicaraguan Contras not considered terrorists? What about Guatemala's army? Is it because this would mean that we were guilty of arming terrorists? Why is the president who armed these deadly groups canonized as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history? The answer is really quite simple. The U.S. elites in the country accepted the fact that Reagan had to sell arms to vicious killers to stop the spread of communism. During the Cold War inhumane acts by our government were deemed acceptable because if we did not stop the Marxist guerrillas in the tiny country of El Salvador then the Soviet Union would soon control the world.

The Soviet threat was also offered as a justification for overthrowing democratic regimes in Guatemala, Guyana, Brazil, Chile and Iran. It was broadly accepted by the American elites in government that a country which fairly elects a leftist candidate was not responsible enough to run its own country. The mainstream view of the day also reasoned that we were forced to arm the brutal military juntas in Greece and Uruguay sure we were sad to arm the people who had ended their countries democracies and installed brutal totalitarian dictatorships, but in the long run it was for the best. If the U.S. quit selling these countries weapons, then the Soviet Union would take over the world. We were taught to accept that we were arming killers in the name of freedom.

This is not meant to make light the threat posed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an evil empire that brutally repressed countries throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Their actions throughout the Cold War were both ruthless and heartless. But does this really excuse U.S. behavior in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America during the Cold War? Does the mere threat of a country going communist permit the U.S. to support brutal dictatorships? And did communists countries even get along amongst themselves? China and the Soviet Union did not get along. China and Vietnam went to war with each other. The brutal North Vietnamese government went on to invade the genocidal Khmer Rouge led government in Cambodia. And the U.S. had good relations with the repressive communist regime in China after Nixon normalized relations with the country in 1972. The U.S. also supported ruthless leaders like Mobutu in the Congo and Jonas Savimbi in Angola who had no interest in embracing anything close to resembling free market capitalism. And it should also be noted that many nationalist, leftist, socialist and communist movements that occurred in developing countries were resistance movements directed at colonial powers or tiny elite groups that had denied them basic social and economic rights for several years. These movements were because of situations within those countries, not because of any actions taken by the Soviets. Unfortunately too many people in the U.S. had already accepted the idea that the Soviets were behind every resistance movement that deviated from the path the U.S. found acceptable.

This article focuses on certain U.S. actions during the Cold War to show what can happen when absolutist views are accepted by a society. And keep in mind this idea was accepted by people living in the freest country in the world. We must not forget that many of today's radical Islamists believe they are dieing for Allah, much like Reagan thought arming the Contras in Nicaragua was justified because it was being done in the name of democracy. The Islamists who is involved in a suicide bombing that kills hundreds of civilians will always find ways to justify their actions. Their blind loyalty to the absolutist doctrine promoted by Osama Bin Laden has left them unable to see that their actions are immoral.

It will be up to the countries society to discourage terrorism by promoting a culture that allows everyone a chance to thrive no matter what race, religion or gender they belong to. If the majority of a country's citizens believe Christians and Jews are infidels than they will probably elect a government that adheres to radical Islam. This is why democracy alone will not stop terrorism. We shouldn't forget that Hamas was democratically elected despite their disgusting anti-Semitic beliefs. A society will not know peace until all fundamentalist ideologies are rejected.

Learn more about this author, Andy Heintz.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.