Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Terrorism, American Style

by

shutterstock_353116853

As the popularity of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and other race-baiting antidemocratic politicians attest, a significant portion of the American public is hostile to Washington, whether with respect to expansion of civil liberties and human rights, taxation, immigration policy, or diplomacy.  This part of the public wants a strong, no-nonsense leader who will take them out of the cultural and political wilderness, and restore to them (mainly meaning to white male America) the respect and power it once supposedly had (and supposedly deserves).  A subset of this public consists of gun lovers (again, all white males) who live by conspiracy theories, a distorted notion of the Constitution and the Bible, and a craving for violent action against authority.  They are our terrorists.

We in America thus must deal with the unfortunate fact that domestic terrorism is becoming a serious national security threat, greatly helped by the provocative rhetoric of the leading Republican presidential candidates.  Since 9/11, “non-Islamic extremists” actually account for more lives lost than “Islamic extremists,” by 48 to 45.  Yet, this predominantly white, male, Christian terrorism invariably escapes being labeled as such.  Instead, the mass media uses more polite language, such as “militia men” and “armed activists”—words that probably would not be applied if the terrorists were American Indians, African Americans, Jews, or of course Muslims. As Janell Ross writesin the Washington Post, “The descriptions of events in Oregon appear to reflect the usual shape of our collective assumptions about the relationship between race and guilt—or religion and violent extremism—in the United States.”

Which brings me to the current situation in rural Oregon’s Malheur National Forest Refuge.  A small group of self-styled “militia” seems to think that an armed occupation is the only alternative when complaints against government are not satisfactorily addressed.  But that is nonsense: peaceful protest, passive resistance, elections, petitions, and recalls are all available.  Four years ago, when the Occupy movement was in thrall, peaceful sit-ins were the norm, not armed invasion, seizure of buildings, and declarations of self-rule. The current Oregon situation in fact was preceded by a peaceful protest against federal regulation of ranch land, only to have the “militia” preempt it to serve its own needs.  Its leaders never bothered to ask the Hammond family, on whose behalf the extremists says they are acting, if it wanted their support.  The extremists’ action is reminiscent of various US interventions abroad that have occurred without a request for it by local authorities or indigenous groups claiming oppression.

The so-called militia in Oregon is armed and dangerous.  These people have been spoiling for a fight and, while preaching peaceful intentions, seem to welcome doing battle with government officials.  Its leaders speak the language of millenarian groups: referring to loyalty to a higher power, professing to act on behalf of “the people,” vowing violence only if provoked.  This is the familiar language of terror groups which, while to some degree reflecting a larger public anger, exploit it to further its own ambitions.  The Oregon group would like nothing better than to be joined by more far-right antigovernment outfits as a means of self-justification.  It’s a microcosm of the ISIS end-of-days perspective.

Local and federal law enforcement will need to confront these people at some point, hopefully with Waco and Ruby Ridge in mind and therefore without violence.  There are plenty of options, including cutting off the group’s water, power, and telephone to isolate it.  A negotiated solution also seems possible, one that trades the group’s willingness to end its occupation in return for no prosecution.  The federal authorities also might consider reducing the sentences of the two Hammond family members who have been returned to jail.  Their five-year sentences do seem excessive, for range-fire arsonists.  A sentence reduction would calm public resentment in that county and take the ground out from under the terrorists.

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, an international affairs quarterly and blogs at In the Human Interest.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]