Nations Cannot Fight Terrorism Being Terrorists Themselves - Essay Example

Can the ‘War on Terrorism’ be won? The ‘War on Terrorism’ as it is commonly referred to, is phrase coined by United States government officials and is primarily used to justify the military or political initiative de jour. It is generally defined as the current conflict between the U.S. and radical Islamic factions. The ‘War on Terrorism’ cannot be won much the same as the ‘War on Poverty’ and ‘War on Drugs’ will never be won in the traditional sense. The world will always suffer the effects of drugs, poverty and terrorism. However if winning in these circumstances can be defined as minimizing instances and the harmful outcomes then yes much can be accomplished. Having passengers undress at the airport or unlawfully spying on U.S. citizens will do little to reduce terrorist attacks. To successfully win any battle or wars with terrorism, understanding the motivation of radical fundamentalist Islamic groups, what incites them to the point of suicide bombings, is essential. As history has recorded, the Bush administration either failed to recognize these motivations or failed to respond in an appropriate way. Its foreign policy, military and diplomatic blunders since 9-11 specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan have served only to increase the instances of terrorism and the level of hatred Muslims harbor against Western societies, especially the U.S. Terrorist groups, specifically Muslim fundamentalists, are concerned that their ancient culture is being replaced by a Western culture they despise. Globalization has allowed deviant Western traditions such as the exploitation of workers, sexual permissiveness and capitalistic icons such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds to seep into and change their cherished way of like. Allowing unfamiliar ideologies and customs into their lifestyles is difficult for religious fundamentalists of any description. Add the fact that the U.S. imposed an embargo on Iraq since the early 1990’s which according to the U.N. led to more a million child deaths, has built military installations on Muslim Holy lands and, along with the ‘coalition of the coerced,’ recently invaded two Muslim countries killing many innocent civilians. Western nations are invading the culture, governments and sovereignty in a region of the world where religious fanaticism exceeds the fervor of what is commonly known in the U.S. as the ‘Bible Belt.’ It is little wonder that these people are fearful of the West and possess sufficient motive for terrorist acts. With the ready access of other regions of the world aided by globalization, they have the opportunity for retribution. So far, the score is terrorists, one, U.S. 0. The 9-11 attacks did more damage to Western societies in one morning than the misguided retribution has delivered to terrorist groups since that time. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 were on U.S. soil but resulted in severe repercussions regarding not just national but the global economy as well. On that day and for about a year and a half prior, the major economies of the world were teetering on the edge of at least recession conditions and many were close to a full-scale depression. The attacks prevented any perceived or real economic upturns that were predicted given the factors present at that time. The event destroyed lives and property, increased government spending at a time when the country could ill afford the excessive expenditures and squelched corporate and consumer confidence which further slowed the economy and hindered the recovery efforts. The events lasted over a period of a couple of hours but its affects are still being felt all over the world. The heightened insecurity regarding terrorist acts and its effects on the economy worldwide continues to give worry to investors and businesses which only serve to further cripple the economies of most countries. Al-Qaeda’s attempt to cause massive destruction would serve all the traditional purposes of terrorism: symbolism, propaganda and psychological impact, irrespective of the failure or success of the mission. There’s a faulty premise in the current strategy on the war on terrorism, that suicide terrorism and Al Qaeda suicide terrorism in particular is mainly driven by an evil ideology, Islamic fundamentalism, independent of other circumstances. However, the facts are that since 1980, of the suicide terrorist attacks around the world over half have been secular. What over 95 percent of suicide attacks around the world are about is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose – to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. This is in fact a centerpiece of Al Qaeda’s strategic logic, which is to compel the United States and Western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula. Suicide terrorists are not mainly depressed, lonely individuals on the margins of society. (O’Brien, 2005). Immediately following and as a reactionary response to the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., President George Bush stated the county’s intent to initiate a ‘War on Terrorism’ which he characterized as a prolonged battle against those that would employ terrorist actions along with the nations that enabled them. In addition, the U.S. Congress gave formal authorization to the President on 18 September 2001 to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (U.S. Code 2002). Following this proclamation, Bush made his infamous ‘dead or alive’ speech and on 10 October 2001, offered a list of America’s 22 most-wanted terrorists (White House, 2001a). During his State of the Union Address on 20 September 2001, Bush presented his position to the American people and the assembled body of Congress. “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (White House, 2001b). Bush chose to follow the advice of this jaded, self serving legal opinion in spite of strong disagreement by the U.S. State Department which cautioned against disregarding U.N. and international laws as well as covenants of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration was head-strong in its cavalier use of military force and lack of respect for laws agreed to by the world’s community of nations (Mayer, 2005, p. 34). The ultimate culmination of the rhetoric and selective legal reasoning regarding the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the U.S. military to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, an illegal act on many fronts. Bush has constantly maintained that these actions against sovereign countries were legal. First, he argues, because of existing language within the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, which is also publicly espoused by the British government and secondly, the invasions are an act of self-defense which international law permits. However, according to Richard Perle, a top official of the U.S. Defense Policy Board and advisor to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.” (Burkeman & Borger, 2003). Yet, this would have been “morally unacceptable” according to the Bush administration. The U.S. justified its invasion and occupation of Iraq to the nations of the world by proclaiming, if not proving, that it was a mission to remove weapons of mass destruction which threatened not only the U.S. but all other nations as well. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials, particularly with the U.S. Department of State, eagerly endeavored to state their rationale for aggressive military actions and make it as palatable to as many other countries as they could. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine dated 28 May 2003 as saying “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction” (Shovelan, 2003). Prior to the invasion, Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq, stated without a doubt and quite publicly that they had not been able to uncover any evidence of biological, nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq following three years of inspections. He went on to say that he doubted that these weapons had ever existed (“Hans Blix”, 2003). Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, widely considered a hard-liner towards the former Iraqi regime and a vocal advocate for thorough weapons inspections, said, again, prior to the invasion that he was “absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction” (Sullivan, 2003). At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty, at worst, his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. The Chief Prosecutor of the war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials subsequent to World War Two, U.S. citizen Benjamin B. Ferencz, has condemned the Iraq invasion calling it an “aggressive war” and declared that Bush, the war’s architect, should be put on trial for his war crimes (Glantz, 2006). The trial at Nuremberg determined that military aggression is considered the most supreme of international crimes. Following the massive human carnage of the Second World War, the United Nations charter was written so as to prevent this type of action from ever happing again. It contains explicit provisions prohibiting any nation from using military force without consent of the Security Council. Nelson Mandela, widely renowned as one of the most respected statesmen in the world has also condemned this action as “a threat to world peace. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America” (“US Threatens World Peace”, 2002). Mandela was hardly alone in his assessment. For example, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said on Meet The Press, a respected, long-running news program in the U.S., “I believe most sincerely that one of the motivating factors involved in this effort to strike against Iraq is the desire on the part of some to be at the control the oil interests in Iraq, I believe that” (“Transcript: Dennis Kucinich”, 2002). Critics of the invasion charge that no nation has the right, or the authority based on the UN Charter, to determine for itself whether or not Iraq was in conformity with UN rules or to take it upon itself to enforce them. The U.S. has also been widely criticized for applying a double standard in its reasoning. The logic of this action is in opposition to previous U.S. policies as it supplied chemical and other weapons systems to Iraq in the 1980’s to use against Iran. When the U.S. was looking for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, the popular joke being circulated was “The U.S. knows Iraq has weapons because they have the receipt” (Goodman, 2003). Although many Americans had hoped that Al Qaeda had been badly weakened by American counterterrorism efforts since September 11, 2001, the facts indicate otherwise. Since 2002, Al Qaeda has carried out over 15 suicide and other terrorist attacks killing nearly 700 people, more than all of the years before 9/11 combined. Although many have hoped that American counter-terrorism efforts would have weakened Al Qaeda by the measure that counts the ability of the group to kill Westerners, Al Qaeda is stronger today than before 9/11. Terrorists have not been fundamentally weakened but have changed course and achieved significant success (Pape, 2005). In President Bush’s handling of the war on terror, two facts stand out: Before September 11, he failed to take military action against an enemy that had attacked us, and later, he took military action against an enemy that had not attacked first. The invasion of Iraq, which never had anything to do with fighting terrorism, has provided fresh examples of U.S. brutality for al-Qaeda recruiters. The previously high-level of hatred that the vast majority of Middle East citizens had for Western nations has expanded exponentially since 2003 which has led to an increased number of terrorist attacks. Counting only the number of what is labeled as ‘significant terrorist attacks’ the number swelled from about 208 in 2003 to 651 in 2004 more than 11,000 in 2005 and at least 14,300 in 2006 (“Terror Attacks Worldwide”, 2007). The couple of hundred attacks that took place worldwide the first year of the war has now ballooned to several thousand. If the Bush convoluted policies designed to fight terror are allowed to continue, this number is likely to continue its climb. Governments stop terrorism first of all by stopping their own forms of terrorism. Nations cannot fight terrorism by becoming terrorists. They cannot end terrorism by using the methods of terrorism to bomb and kill Iraqis, to occupy Iraq, to support the terrorist occupation of the Palestinians, and to hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons. The allies must first bring the troops home from Iraq, fund nonviolent democratic peacemakers in Iraq, send food and medicine to Iraq, support United Nations’ nonviolent peacemaking solutions, end world hunger immediately, cut all U.S. military aid everywhere, dismantle every one of our nuclear weapons, fund jobs, education and healthcare at home and abroad, clean up the environment and teach nonviolence to everyone around the world, beginning at home in every U.S. and British classroom. Violence cannot stop violence. Nations must break the cycle of violence, renounce violence, start practicing creative active nonviolence on a level that the world has never seen, and reach out and embrace the world’s poor by meeting their every need. Then, “we will win over the world, and no one will ever want to hurt a Westerner again” (Dear, 2005). Significant policy changes that the United States should pursue on both moral and pragmatic grounds – withdrawing all military forces from the Middle East and ending reflexive support for the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine – would lessen the threat of worldwide terrorism immediately. If the current policies continue, the terrorist attacks will continue as well causing not only bodily damage but political damage as well which could last for hundreds or thousands of years. Terrorism is a fact of life but does not have to be at today’s levels. References Burkeman, Oliver & Borger, Julian. (November 20, 2003). “War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal.” Manchester Guardian. Retrieved March 8, 2008 from Dear, John. (July 10, 2005). “How to Stop Terrorism.” CommonDreams.org. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from Glantz, Aaron. (August 25, 2006). “Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor.” One World USA. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from Goodman, Amy. (March 12, 2003). Charlie Rose show transcript. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from “Hans Blix’s Briefing to the Security Council.” (February 14, 2003). Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from “Transcript: Dennis Kucinich stated in an interview with NBCs Meet the Press broadcast.” (September 17, 2002). Retrieved March 8, 2008 from Mayer, Jane. (February 14, 2005). “Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s ‘Extraordinary Rendition.’” The New Yorker Magazine. O’Brien, Kerry. (July 20, 2005). “US ‘Misread Motivation’ of Suicide Bombers.” The 7:30 Report. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from Pape, Robert A (July 12, 2005). “Al Qaeda’s Strategy.” The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2008 from Shovelan, John. (May 29, 2003). “Wolfowitz Reveals Iraq PR Plan.” The World Today. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from Sullivan, Robert III. (April 3, 2003). “Former Weapons Inspector Questions the War.” Cornell University Chronicle Online. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from “Terror Attacks Worldwide Rose 25 Percent in ’06.” (April 30, 2007). MSNBC. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from U.S. Code Collection. (2002). “Title 50 Chapter 33 § 1541: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002.” Cornell Law School. Retrieved March 8, 2008 from “US Threatens World Peace, Says Mandela.” (September 11, 2002). BBC News. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from (The) White House. (November 13, 2001). “President Issues Military Order Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism.” White House Press Release: Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved March 8, 2008 from (The) White House. (September 20, 2001). “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People.” United States Capitol Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from Read More