Monday, August 25, 2008

The Infernal Machine: From the Assassination of Alexander II to Al-Queda

Rating:★★★★★
Category:Books
Genre: Nonfiction
Author:Matthew Carr
It was Sweden's Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, who unintentionally privatized weapons of terror. He made it possible for "every day" folks with an agenda to kill statesmen and bystanders wihtout having to lug around a lot of gunpowder. It was dynamite that created small "infernal machines" that brought fear (or to some desperate people, hope) to both the King and the President, as well as the lowly who might serve as collateral damage in some conflagration. The horor of the bomber/terorrist captured the imagination of authors like Fyodor Dostoyevsky in "The Demons" and Joseph Conrad in "The Secret Agent".

Matthew Carr takes a broad and very through look at the roots of modern terrorism, from its rise through the "People's Will" cells that dynamited Czar Alexander II in 1881 through pre-1914 Europe when bombers and assassins using knives and pistol terrorized heads of state all of Europe under the general heading of "anarchists". These cells of extremists did in indeed kill several royal personages and prime minister and Presidents, some of whom were simply targeted because they were royalty and not that they wielded any real power. Some who called themselves anarchists were simply deranged, like Leon Frank Czolgosz, who shot and killed President William McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York in 1901. Gzolgosz had briefly met anarchist leader Emma Goldman, but didn't belong to hers or any organized group.
It was, of course, after the shooting of Austria-Hungary's Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajavo, Bosnia, in July, 1914, that the head honchos of Mighty Europe's capitals took over and gave the assassins' a run for their money in bloodletting. The result was "the war to end all wars", and millions of dead soldiers and civilians who thought in the Summer of 1914 that the war would be a cakewalk against their old nationalist foes.

Much of the book goes back and forth--chapter by chapter--between "underdog" terrorist groups like the bloody deeds of the IRA and the bloody deeds of the counter-terrorist "over lords" like the British "Black and Tan" flying units of terror competing to win hearts and minds through putting more and more of each other's foes into the ground. The IRA/Black and Tan strugle is repeated over and over again for the next 90 years. The geography changes, the people involved and their languages change, the weapons get more ominous, but on and on the push-and-pull of fear and counter-terror goes forward.
Carr examines terrorism and the aims of "asymetrical warfare" in a dispassionate style that allows many opinions to come through his chapters. He documents the 1950's with the "Mau Mau uprising", in three dozen total dead white settlers were matched with many thousand black African deaths. The British Colonial government in Kenya turned to concentration camp, or a "pipeline" system, to house hundreds of thousands of Kikuyu who were made to swear alligence to the colonial government to be free. The liberal use of hanging also helped keep order in the brush. The French, not to be outdone, had similar terror campaigns of torture, confinement and bombing to quell the anti-colonial violence in Algeria.
Later on, the ugly side of the USA's "Alliance for Progress" in Latin America is examined as American CIA, FBI and military special forces institute programs of training right-wing paramilitaries from El Salvador to Uruguay to keep "friendly" dictatorships in charge in Latin America and counteract the "many Vietnams" approach of revolutionary war taken up by Che Guervara and other pro-Communist insurgents.

Carr writes of our own time that "the present eruption of Islamist violence is perhaps a symptom of an imbalance of power and the consequence of decades of manipulation, deceit and hypocrisy in Western foreign policy towards the Arab world." It's pretty clear no matter what the future holds that the ugly process of terror and state sponsored counter-terror will continue. Carr does point out the dangers of free societies using intrusive and draconian tactics to stop terrorism. And he reminds that much of the brutal deaths in this world are not the result of terrorism but of "good" old-fashioned war in places like the Congo where 3 million people died in a past few years recently, as opposed to the few thousand killed by terrorists in developed countries.

15 comments:

  1. so hang on a minute! The Nobel Peace Prize is named after the guy who invented Dynamite?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm afraid so. He was also a major arms manufacturer. (And, gosh, in my experience the Swedes are so polite!) He left most of his will to establish the Nobel Prizes so he would be known for something besides inventing an early component for weapons of destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am not good at accepting some one elses' designations. Which does not mean I agree with violence in any shape or form but in the above cases at least, it seems people are defined as terrorists if they are pitched against whatever government is in power, regardless of the legitimacy of the government in question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh. Perhaps he felt remorseful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, I agree. I don't advocate violence in any shape or form--unless perhaps in case of invasion by some group similar to the Third Reich. And even then the damage to innocents is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This sounds like an interesting book Doug, thanks for the review. As both you and Iri suggest above the definition of terrorism is problematic. When the foreign policy of countries like the US and the UK are blatantly terroristic it is difficult to say where terrorism begins and ends. Add to those complications the fact that state security forces frequently facilitate 'false flag' attacks which are passed off as terrorism (by somebody else of course) and are nearly always recognisable by their sophistication and spectacular devastation; we have a situation where only the comparatively small scale outrages are actually conceived of and executed by inspired amateurs on the outside of the security loop. If we want to stop terrorism it would be a good start for our governments to stop doing it first. Such a cessation I suspect would end 90% of the terrorism that is currently perpetrated around the world, the bulk of it funded and orchestrated by state institutions and carried out by their outsourced privateers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes. Almost like being a good parent even. I find it quite appalling (thinking of places like Ireland, Africa, New Zealand even) where someone else moves in and takes over (British colonialism, American occupation) and then when the locals get upset, it is classified as TERRORISM!

    Even recently in New Zealand (a good example too of how governments' anxieties are hyped up - and normally our government is quite calm) a police contingent swooped onto a local Maori tribe and onto people who are know activists (activists not terrorists) and arrested people as TERRORISTS even! The country was gobsmacked!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Terrorism is dirty fighting, one doesn't know who the enemy is and they plant bombs to kill the innocent.
    Getting on a train in London after the last bomb, took quite a bit of courage!

    As for Ireland, the leaders came together, and at last we have a peace with that country. What a rocky road we travelled to get there. Shame it wasn't resolved earlier, before so much loss of life!

    Dynamite! It has a lot to answer for, although without the hand of man it is of little use!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you ever wonder if anyone listens to ideas such as this? Certainly it can't take a whole lot of common sense to figure it out. We made our bed over there and now scratch our butts wondering what went wrong. It's amazing how incompetent our foreign policies can be at times.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No matter if one sees an act of mass-violence event as a covert "false flag" operation, or perhaps the "blow back" from a short-sighted foreign policy that reaped unexpected final results, as some see happening in Afghanistan with the Taliban government (or even if one remains agnostic on the source of a given attack(s) ), its quite clear that major nation-states and "middle powers" have to stop treating the world and its people living in cultures not our own like pieces on some freaking game board. In other words,AA, I wholly agree funding terror organizations of any variety only keeps the "game" in play.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is a sad fact how quickly democratic societies will let the authorities go off the rails in the name of national security if a panic sets in, even if events are not close to home. Glad to hear people were so outraged.

    There are so many examples of this happening in America since 9/11 2001 Iri Ani that even a small listing of overreactions against native-born Muslim-Americans and naturalized citizens from the Middle East would make this too long a reply. You probably have heard of some of the zealous handy work of this government. Suffice to say there are people who cannot fly in an aircraft simply because of their last names.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm with you on that astroguy. It seems always that the pack in charge at the White House seems to have to start from ground zero on making policy, carrying out decisions on war or peace, et al. They seem so careful not to learn anything from their predecessors. Very frustrating!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, Cassandra, it seems much calmer over there in Northern Ireland than it was from the late Sixties and through to the Good Friday Agreement that I believe was some ten-twelve years back. It took who knows how long, but we do see some progress from time to time that gives hope.

    ReplyDelete