Unfortunately, war benefits ANY incumbent leader who handles it with even minimal competence. Hence in Sri Lanka the anti-war oppisition becomes the pro-war incumbent after the election. And need I mention the Democrats, who have much to gain from an anti-war stance, but only as long as the war continues?

If it was only limited to America, life would be much simpler, but unfortunately this seems the case throughout much of the world: power goes to he/she willing to sieze it. From Musharraf in Pakistan to Rajapakse in Sri Lanka to Putin in Russia, power goes to the bullies. And they all use militants to strengthen their power– the threat justifies more power. That’s the flip side of the cycle of violence.

Ultimately, as many say, American society is one that rewards the school bully. W and his entire administration are nothing but bullies seeking to humiliate everybody in the world. In this regard, American complacency is not surprising because Americans are taught to tolerate bullies from a very early age, and the reaction of the rest of the world is entirely understandable because the rest of the world hates bullies. Latin America and the middle east are simply reacting to half century of bullying. Bullying that was unecessary, mind you. After all, we were the economic superpower. We didn’t need to bully or to humiliate anyone anymore to sit pretty.

It’s all a damn stupid shame.

For example, walk into a village in rural Sri Lanka: there will likely be no electricity or running water, and the villagers may live in mud or palm huts on a monthly budget that wouldn’t buy a 12-pack of Pepsi here in the States. This is true whether they be Tamil or Sinhala. For one side to claim its humiliation is greater than the other is absurd. Yet both sides have (and do).

The irony I see is that the claims are most often made and promoted by those who do not (and sometimes have never) lived in such conditions. They are the people who convince the poor to join the cause and make the ultimate sacrifice. But isn’t that the nature of war: rich folks sending poor folks to do the dying?

The greater irony is that so often one side’s poor die to kill the other side’s poor in a misguided attempt to convince the rich elites to change. Look at the market bombings in Iraq, or the border killings in Sri Lanka. These are wars by elite leaders perpetrated against non-elites, based on the supposed presumption that killing non-elites will change the course of the opposing elites. It won’t– it never has. Hence Occam’s Razor suggests that the real motive is somewhat different– that both sides gain something through the cycle of violence. Thus it is sometimes useful (and often educational) to look at a conflict as war between the elites of both sides against the non-elites of both sides.

As to the role of religion, it is in every case I am familiar with, secondary. It is molded and corrupted to provide the “moral” umbrella under which acts of terror can take place. And it is often used by both parties, as in Iraq, every party including the U.S. justifies its actions in the name of religion. It may be Christianity or Islam, Buddhism (Sri Lanka), or Hinduism (India). Or it may be a civil religion suggesting that the ethnic nation is God (LTTE). But in each and every case, the “religion” used by those committing atricities is far, far from the teachings of its founder(s).

Perhaps the lesson here is that terrorism stems not from religion, but from humiliation: the grinding poverty that much of the world lives in while a relative minority live in luxury. There are vast pools of cannon fodder who have seen American wealth on TV. (Yes, even in the remote Sri Lankan villages, it’s not uncommon for someone, usually the village headman, to have a battery-operated TV, and “Santa Barbara” is beamed in by satellite– clearly a fair representation of American life. No wonder they hate us!)

Ever notice how each country’s television rarely shows poor people? I can see how media reinforces the idea that “my humiliation, my poverty” is worse than anyone else’s. And since there’s no shortage of poverty, there are plenty of potential converts to a religion of violence.

At the risk of sounding like a leftist, imperialism and exploitative capitalism are what’s killing us. Fo me, that’s not Leftism, it’s just plain common sense.

Damn straight, Bob. Well said.

I do not agree with that you can`t diminish humiliation, deprivation as being marketing hype created by fear mongers and corrupt leaders.

Whenever you see these groups achieving the support of a sizable group of the population, as they have in Lebanon, Palestine or Pakistan, they are capitalizing on real deprivation, and genuine social and economic problems. Perhaps these reasonable concerns are manipulated by radical groups, but you cannot dimminish the underlying injustice and inequality that allows these groups to put forward their ideology as a solution. For instance, Lebanese Shia have historically been politically marginalized by the political and economic system, Hizbullah (and Amal) are the only parties willing to speak to those claims. While I can`t claim to support Hizbullah, it is undeniable that they have seized upon a genuine and reasonable grievance to push forward their entire platform. A similar argument can be made of Palestine, the group and its tactics should not take away from the condition that produced them.