Meditations (Politics): Between Scylla & Charybdis

The marcher's in Madrid said it all: "We were all on that train." On one side of the tracks were the purblind warmongers Bush, Blair, and Aznar, spreading terrorism with their policies. On the other side were the mass murderers who are so besotted with hate that they blew up children with glee.

In the story of Odysseus, the mariners became caught between Scylla, a monstrous, six-headed snake that snatched men from Odysseus' ships, and Charybdis, a whirlpool that swallowed ships whole. Thus the expression "caught between Scylla and Charybdis." That describes the plight of all the world's people now, caught between the militarists and the terrorists.

Once again, in horrific scenes of unimaginable carnage, we see that the notion of a "war against terrorism," much less the idiocy of "winning" it, plays right into the hands of the darkest strains in human consciousness, embodied by both sides in this race to the bottom.

As the Madrid bombings demonstrate, terrorism is a virus multiplied by militaristic reactions. Terrorists are not vermin to be exterminated, but mass murderers, as Aznar called them in the same speech in which he mechanically said, "We will win."

The people of Spain have responded with anger and outrage at the bombings, ousting Aznar's conservative ruling party. But that sets a chilling precedent in the twisted minds of the perpetrators of the bloodbath. They probably think they've scored a victory.

If a similar incident were to happen in the United States just before the election, Americans would almost certainly not respond with outrage at the Bush Administration's policies, but would have a Pavlovian reaction of fear, and vote to keep Bush in office. Whereas Aznar went against the spirit of the Spanish people, Bush embodies the will of the American people.

It is grotesque, and stupid beyond belief, for Bush to nauseatingly repeat: "The enemy declared war on us. And I tell people that war is what they got with George W. Bush as president." But Bush and his minions believe this lunacy. And they believe it not just because it has allowed them to sneak their right wing agenda in under the cover of war. They believe it because it is the way they see they world--in nationalistic terms, which translates into "defending the homeland."

In one form or another, Bush's entire re-election team echoes the same refrain: "The stakes are higher because we're at war." No, we are not. No matter how many times Bush, Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS repeat that lie, they cannot make it true. Of course the Bush Administration will invade another country to keep themselves in power, if they think they can get away with it, as they largely have in Iraq.

Conventional thinking is that Bush will get another term if the misguided war on terrorism dominates the election, but that Kerry will win if the economy dominates, as it did during the Bush Sr.-Clinton battle. I disagree. This election will be a referendum on the Bush Administration's "war on terrorism." So the question becomes: will Americans continue to swallow the lie that "we're at war?" Most certainly have to this point.

In foreign policy, as in most other areas of life, the basic conceptual framework with which one approaches a challenge determines the outcome. (Even the term Œforeign policy' no longer applies, and should be amended, since the line between domestic and foreign is now and forevermore blurred.) But the Bush bunch is stuck in an 18th century mindset that sees the world in terms of nationalism and brute power.

World citizens must make the distinction between war, and a police action backed by military force. Overthrowing the Taliban hosts to flush out the Al-Qaeda criminals was one thing; launching an unprovoked invasion against the easy target of Iraq was another.

Terrorism no longer thrives in a national dimension, but in the globalizing grey area between nations. To fight it in nationalistic terms is to hamstring effective cooperation between countries. As 3/11 demonstrates, it also spreads the virus by driving terrorist networks to link together against a more self-defined 'enemy.'

When terrorists are seen and treated as criminals, perpetrators of crimes against humanity, their ranks will dwindle. Waging war against them legitimizes them, and brings many more converts to their cause.

Global terrorism is a psychological struggle between two evils, with the human spirit hanging in the balance, between Scylla and Charybdis.

- Martin LeFevre is a contemplative, and non-academic religious and political philosopher. He has been publishing in North America, Latin America, Africa, and Europe (and now New Zealand) for 20 years. Email: martinlefevre@sbcglobal.net. The author welcomes comments.

© Scoop Media