The "war on terror" is like ...?
This is a follow-up to my previous post, in which I summarized an article written by Rick Salutin.
I am gratified to note that in their recent comments on the post, Jack and Cyberkitten are taking the discussion in precisely the direction that I felt we needed to go. They are debating whether 9/11 constituted an act of war.
But let me take one step back. In the previous post, I didn't say whether I agreed with Salutin or not. For the record, Salutin is too far to the left for my comfort. In particular, when he suggests that we should seek out a different interpretation altogether of events such as 9/11, I'm a little alarmed by the direction he's taking us in.
Even so, I think his perspective is valuable, which is why I shared it with you. Salutin provokes us into examining the "war on terror". I find myself asking questions like, Is the "war on terror" really a war?
Or this one: when President Bush whips up support for the war by saying, "We stand for democracy and peace; the extremists would ban books, desecrate historical monuments, and brutalize women" is that just typical war-time propaganda? — so much empty rhetoric?
Similarly, the terror alerts: is fear just another tool to whip up support for the "war on terror"? (Note the irony, if the Bush administration is fighting terror by sowing terror among the US citizenry.)
I propose that we explore the issue as follows. I invite you to fill in the blank in the following sentence: The "war on terror" is …
- like World War II.
In this analysis, Osama bin Laden is cast in the role of Adolph Hitler; George "Dubya" Bush therefore plays the part of Winston Churchill.
David Warren, a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen, is a proponent of this point of view. - like the Cold War.
In the Cold War, communists and proponents of democracy fought for the global supremacy of their system of government. The war was largely ideological: the USA and the USSR never declared war on one another (hence the term, "cold" war).
Over at Kerckhoff Coffeehouse, Dr. Bean and ball-and-chain believe the "war on terror" is the same sort of conflict. - a phoney war.
Rick Salutin is a proponent of this position. To reiterate: The "war on terror" is no real war, more an endless state of tension like the wars in Nineteen Eighty-four. Even George Bush says it will last years, or decades.
On the other hand, if the "war on terror" is a phoney war, presumably the West shouldn't resort to military force at all.
At this point, once again, I turn the discussion over to you. I'd like to hear your answers to the following questions:
- The "war on terror" is …?
- Therefore we should fight it …?
posted by stc @ 10:00 PM
25 comments
25 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I so hope that the war on terror is not a phoney war like in 1984 - but I worry that it is.
I think it is more like a hot cold war, but although that may be slightly better in ideological terms, it's far more worrying in personal terms, as these things have a habit of escalating very rapidly.
All we can do is hope that when Bush & Blair have gone, their replacements will drop the rhetoric & allow both sides to come to some terms, without personal prestige getting in the way.
I've heard the 'War on Terror' being called a Clash of Ideologies or a War of Ideas..
How exactly do you fight a War of Ideas? Do you put forward better ideas than 'the enemy' or do you try & kill everyone (or at least frighten everyone) who holds that idea?
Is it even possible to kill an idea - with bullets and bombs?
If we are indeed fighting a rag-tag bag of terrorists we know exactly how to fight it. We fight it the way we have always fought terrorism (after all its not exactly a new phenomena).
You fight it by winning the hearts & minds of the communities where the terrorists live. You show their communities that there is a better way... and you hunt down & kill/arrest/convict those who use violence to gain their ends.
What you don't do.. is to bomb & shell towns harbouring terrorists & you avoid (as much as is humanly possible) killing civilians.
You do not win wars against terrorists by killing members of their communities. That only generates hatred & more terrorists. Haven't we learnt anything yet? After all we have plenty of examples to draw on.
the war on terror is nothing but an excuse for the current Oil Hungry Right Wing American Government to deflect attention from the growing domestic crises to a supposed violent foreign foe.
In doing so the supposed foe (or "Axis of Evil") becomes more violently protective of their own ideologies, so fulfilling the requirements of the aggressor US administration to have a target to deflect the minds of it's own people from the abject poverty and social problems it fails to address at home. and so the circular argument continues.
Strong Governments concentrate on Home Policy, Weak ones on Foreign Policy, Very Weak and ideologically unsound ones start wars.
9/11 was just used as an excuse, our governments used to promote and nurture our dreams, now they play on our fears and promote our nightmares.
has any "war on terror" ever been won from the outside?
I suspect that if we spent a little time researching we would find that there are wars that have been won from the outside.
One could argue that a major component of winning a war is inflicting so much damage on the opposition that they agree to end the violence and come to the negotiating table.
You do not win wars against terrorists by killing members of their communities. That only generates hatred & more terrorists.
I am not as a big of fan of force/violence as it might appear, but as I said on the Salutin post if this is a war of ideologies then the use of force is almost immaterial to the creation of new terrorists.
I agree wholeheartedly that you have to win the hearts and minds of the general populace, but that isn't always something that can be done with just diplomacy.
Something I've just stumbled upon:
"Our enemy," said President Bush, "is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."
"It will not end," the President declared, "until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." That is the declared aim of the war
So, we have an open ended war... against any group of people who have a 'Global Reach' - which in effect means everyone - and who threaten the interests of the USA...
I have a feeling that this could take a while..... It IS starting to look a bit more like 1984 isn't it.......?
JS said: if this is a war of ideologies then the use of force is almost immaterial to the creation of new terrorists.
So... How exactly do you win such a war?
Especially when you also said: One could argue that a major component of winning a war is inflicting so much damage on the opposition that they agree to end the violence and come to the negotiating table.
• Misanthrope:
Now that the USA is in Iraq, it's no small trick to get out again without leaving a vaccuum of power that can be exploited by terrorists like al Qaeda and Islamic extremists.
And fighting terror under cover is a plan I can agree to. Canada isn't providing much support for the "war on terror", but I'm glad the support we are providing is of the kind you describe: an elite unit that operates under cover and strikes terrorist bases with precision.
• Mrs. Aginoth:
I do think President Bush's ego is an issue. I don't feel as negatively toward Prime Minister Blair, but that's probably because I respect his intelligence more. But it may be true that his ego is also a factor.
• Cyberkitten:
There's a lot of merit to your position. When ball-and-chain (at Kerckhoff Coffeehouse) made reference to the Cold War, I responded just like you: if this is a war of ideology, why are we relying on military force to win it?
I think Bush and Blair are aware that they need to win the hearts and minds of Muslims. Supporting relief efforts after the earthquake in Pakistan is motivated only in part by humanitarian concerns.
But they have alienated more Muslims than they have won over, because they see "winning hearts and minds" as a secondary strategy. The primary strategy is as Jack describes, to inflict so much damage on the enemy that they finally agree to negotiate.
It's a view that says, force is the only thing Islamo-fascists understand and respect. Therefore, the way to win the war is to show that we're mightier than they are. And more courageous: because everyone knows the USA has superior military force: but Osama expected the USA to retreat as soon as Americans started coming home in body bags.
That dynamic is still playing itself out. Osama and his kind still think, if we kill enough Americans they'll lose the will to fight; and Bush keeps saying, it would be a huge strategic error to leave Iraq before the job is done.
More thoughts below, in my response to Jack.
• Mary P.:
Ball-and-chain would tell you that the Cold War is a historical precedent of the kind you're asking about. The enemy were communists, not terrorists, but it was an ideological war, just like this one. And eventually it became apparent that capitalism was a superior economic system. The Cold War ended because their ideology couldn't compete with ours.
It isn't quite the same thing as "winning hearts and minds" in the way that Cyberkitten was suggesting. But ultimately they were persuaded that they had backed the wrong horse.
• Aginoth:
Your position is coherent, but I don't see it that way. See my remarks on the history of the conflict below.
• Jack:
Implicitly, I think you're viewing this war as akin to WWII. Hitler was an evil man with evil intent, and he struck the first blow. If we then resorted to war, it was an act of self-defence. But once the battle was joined we had to be willing to be aggressive. We had to be prepared to kill and keep on killing until the enemy's will was broken.
That's the interpretation President Bush wants us to take. And I think there's some merit to it. I particularly appreciate the history you provided in a comment on the previous post:
We could make the argument that this war was launched back in 1979 when the Shah was overthrown and the Iranian Hostage crisis began.
It continued with the car bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and various other attacks during the 1980s.
In the '90s there was the first attack on the World Trade Center, there were attacks on the USS Cole, the African Embassies, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and then later 911.
That doesn't include any other Islamist attacks on countries other than the US.
If that is the correct history of this conflict, then we're in a battle akin to WWII. The enemy is going to keep attacking until we pulverize them.
But here's where doubts arise for me. Unlike WWII, the enemy is not a state. Terrorists operate in little cells in many countries around the globe.
Those cells are the enemy. That's where we have to bring force to bear. And at that point, I agree with you again: we have to inflict maximum damage on that target, until we break their will.
Is that what Bush is doing? It seems to me he has focussed almost all of his attention in one place. And I'm not convinced that's the appropriate strategy for this war. Because this war is like WWII only to a point. Ultimately it's a different situation, and a different strategy is called for.
Q
If that is the correct history of this conflict, then we're in a battle akin to WWII. The enemy is going to keep attacking until we pulverize them.
Agreed.
But here's where doubts arise for me. Unlike WWII, the enemy is not a state. Terrorists operate in little cells in many countries around the globe.
Those cells are the enemy. That's where we have to bring force to bear. And at that point, I agree with you again: we have to inflict maximum damage on that target, until we break their will.
Again I agree with you. And I agree that I am looking very carefully at how Bush is managing the war and what is happening in Iraq.
You know that I am of the opinion that the foundation of this war is ideological in nature and that the unless we made a universal declaration of converting to Islam sooner or later they would come looking for us.
All that being said I think that part of what we must do is really increase our efforts to understand the mindset and mentality of our adversary.
Part of how I do that is by reading Memri and their translations of the Muslim press.
In my mind one of the more interesting things I read there was found in this post.
My apologies for the link away from the blog, I am not shilling for my own, just trying to make it easy to find the information I was citing.
Q I dispute your position that this global terrorism started in 1979, what actually is the case is America became embroiled in some minor way at that point, and in it'sd opinion more seriously after 9/11 (but see my earlier post, there is too much oil involved to be sure)
The UK has been fighting International terrorists in the form of Commonwealth Independence Fighters and of more note the IRA Provisional IRA, Real IRA Republican Guard, etc for over 100 years. Didn't see the Americans getting all up in arms over the Irish Revolt and original IRA terrorism in the early 20th Century nor over the Terrorist attrocities of the late 20th Century in Mainland Britain and Northern Ireland.
In fact it was a large number of pro-IRA supporters in the US that perpetuated teh ability of the IRA to run Operations for many years, and several high profile American families were quite commonly inviting leading Republican Terrorists to discuss strategies and funding in the states. NORAID was one of the so called Charity fronts that aided the IRA. So much for America and it's stand against America, despite many requests by UK Governments to sucessive US governments refused to freeze teh funds and accounts ofknown supporters of Terrorism living in the US.
But suddenly the US of A gets a good kick up the arse and suddenly the rest of the word and it closest ally is expected to gear up to go to war.
America seems to think it is the only country in the world that has ever been the target of internatiopnal terrorism, it seems to think it is the only country that ultimately knows how to sort out the terrorists; and th e method it is trying to emply is WAR, full outright bloody conflict and damn the civilian casualties.
The UK learnt it's lessons about sending in the troops in terrorism driven situations some decades ago, and holding up Irish terrorism as an example the only way to ever defeat terrorism is to remove the reason why they needed to take up arms in the first place, by talking to them and reaching if not a compromise at least an understanding allowing peace to begin to take hold. it's taken over a decade of talks to get close to this in Northern Ireland.
The US and it's allied governments (and I am ashamed to say the UK seems to have forgotten how to deal with terrorism by talking once again), are aggressivly alienating the very people who's hearts and minds they need to win be indiscriminate dealing of death and distruction to the people in a country they "invadeded" to help.
Words are needed, not bullets and Bombs.
I have always thought that instead of making out Saddam Hussein t o be the evil dictator of an Evil Land (oh and he wasn't so evil we couldn't sell him arms to fight Iran was he) we should have pumped iraq full of aid, food, medicine, as much as we could afford to give. And of course we should have never sold him arms in teh first place nor supported his coming to power in teh first place; a fact that is generally glossed over and ignored by the Allies.
Aginoth,
The situation with the IRA is very different from that presented by the radical Islamists.
It is an apples to oranges comparison.
One of the things that you have to remember is that this is not something that can be viewed solely through Western eyes.
The thought process is very different.
Little difference , many parallels.
religion : Radical Catholics instead of Radical Muslims.
Funding: from Rich Irish Americans instead of Rich Arabic Families.
Leader: of Organisation trained by Arabs (modern IRA trained in Libya) which I point out is another link to international terrorism, whilst Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA.
Oh yeah one big Difference, Ireland doesn't have much Oil does it?
Having lived in the UK with terrorism all my 35 years, and working in the defence industry for 17 years, subject to the realities of bombs and actually being threatened myself ; I do feel I well placed to understand the realities of how terrorism should be dealt with.
JS... What makes you think that we're in a War of Ideologies here?
Do you mean a Crusade?
Islam Vs the Christian West?
Aginoth said: Having lived in the UK with terrorism all my 35 years, and working in the defence industry for 17 years, subject to the realities of bombs and actually being threatened myself ; I do feel I well placed to understand the realities of how terrorism should be dealt with.
Having lived in London during an IRA Bombing campaign I too can fully appreciate what it's like living with Terrorism. Having missed two bombs by less that 20 minutes on one occasion it certainly brings things home to you...
And the way we handled the IRA worked. Imaging if we shelled Belfast with artillery & jets... the 'war' against the IRA would've lasted 100+ years!
To put it into a bit of historical perspective the birth of the IRA was in no small part caused by the British army using battlefield weapons on the streets of Dublin in 1916 to put down what they saw as a rebellion. Unfortunately the country had to live with the aftermath of that action for 90 years. Not a good example to follow I feel...
I am short on time so this will be a rough answer. Here is part of the distinction. Radical Islam is trying to restore the Islamic caliphate.
That extended through a couple of continents and countries.
They have also made proclamations about their desire to see Islam run as the dominant religion in the world and are willing to use violence to achieve it.
This is not about territory and trying to expel another group and that is a huge difference.
And FWIW, during my time in Israel I missed being involved in several terrorist attacks by a matter of moments, call it luck.
But I have seen the aftermath.
CK,
Yes, I mean that they want a battle versus the West.
Aginoth:
• there is too much oil involved to be sure.
I concede the point. I don't pretend to know for sure what the Bush administration's motives were for invading Iraq. I have reflected on that question many, many, times, but I can't pin it down. Oil may very well have been a major consideration — wars have often been fought for material gain.
I don't think that's the explanation, or the primary explanation … but I don't know for sure.
• I dispute your position that this global terrorism started in 1979, what actually is the case is America became embroiled in some minor way at that point.
I've heard that point before. The USA saw 9/11 as an indication that the world had changed radically, whereas countries like the UK saw it a continuation of a very old practice.
btw, the summary of the history of terrorism came from Jack — I was just quoting him. But it's relevant to establish a long-standing pattern of terrorist activity.
it was a large number of pro-IRA supporters in the US that perpetuated teh ability of the IRA to run Operations for many years [including] several high profile American families.
I didn't know that. Presumably they regarded the Irish as fighting for self-determination, but that certainly doesn't justify terrorism.
The only way to ever defeat terrorism is to remove the reason why they needed to take up arms in the first place, by talking to them and reaching if not a compromise at least an understanding allowing peace to begin to take hold.
Again I find myself agreeing with Jack. I don't think the two situations are parallel. The UK were perceived (rightly or wrongly, I don't pretend to know) as reducing Ireland to a colony of the British Empire.
Osama bin Laden justified 9/11 because there were American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, with the permission of the Saudi government. Hardly the same thing.
I think bin Laden's deeper concern relates to the demise of the Ottoman Empire — again, not the same thing as the UK/Ireland situation.
Of course, the USA is now in the position of occupying a Muslim country … which has given rise to an offense like the UK/Ireland situation.
But that pretext didn't exist throughout the history Jack summarized for us.
For me, 9/11 represents a point of moral clarity. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were clearly in the wrong at that moment. Citizens of the USA were clearly innocent victims.
The war in Afghanistan also seemed to me to be justified, to take out a state that was harbouring al Qaeda.
But by the time of the Iraq invasion, the moral clarity was gone. Maybe the Bush administration had laudable motives, maybe it didn't. Maybe the war was the right thing to do, maybe it wasn't.
It has made it much harder for countries like Canada to support the "war on terror". The morality of your cause has to be absolutely clear to justify killing and "regime change".
Q
Actually CK, right reason wrong time period.
Elizabeth I started this off in teh 16th Century, sent in the troops and the Irish clans took up guerilla tactics.
Cromwell ordered the New Model Army to quell the guerilla Terrorists in the 17th Century, they Masacred thousands of dubliners and other irish to try and quell the terrorism caused by Elizabeths Folly.
In Victorian Times massive riots and terrorist attacks took place all stemming from Elizabeths and Cromwells Military solutions.
this led to the Post Office Rebellion in 1916 as you say.
Military action against terroist forces has led to over 400years of armed conflict in Ireland.
Until we finally sat down and talked 10 years ago...and now it is close to resolution.
Lessons to be learnt? Talk is mightier than the gun.
Q said: I've heard that point before. The USA saw 9/11 as an indication that the world had changed radically, whereas countries like the UK saw it a continuation of a very old practice.
I've heard 9/11 called 'The Day the World Changed'.
Actually it was 'The Day America Changed its View of The World'.
OK my Final points I think
Q Said: Osama bin Laden justified 9/11 because there were American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, with the permission of the Saudi government. Hardly the same thing.
I think bin Laden's deeper concern relates to the demise of the Ottoman Empire — again, not the same thing as the UK/Ireland situation.
I'll just come back to the Irish and the parallels one more time, part of the root of the Irish troubles was the Radical catholic Church of the middle of the last millenium right through to the begining of teh 19th Century, enforcing laws and controlling sympathetic Government to conquer the hearts minds and bodies of the European continent and through to the Middle East.
Rampant Radical Militaristic Religion. Christian in this case
The Irish were quashed for partly for their support of the Catholic Church's fight against Protestant England, then perpetuated by the fact English troops were stationed in Ireland, and parts of France (also devoutly catholic), and Spain (Devoutly Catholic).
The parallels are clear, Religion, Occupation, Trans-continental relious ferver and a religious leader bent on complete dominion.
I'll end on this...
Tell me again Religion is a force for good because....because I can't on balance see what benefit religion brings to our world, be it any denomination or faith.
Q said in his original posting: President Bush whips up support for the war by saying, "We stand for democracy and peace; the extremists would ban books, desecrate historical monuments, and brutalize women" is that just typical war-time propaganda? — so much empty rhetoric?
and yet...
From AFP...
Human Rights Watch said that under President George W. Bush, the United States has become "the only government in the world to claim a legal justification for mistreating prisoners during interrogation."
"The administration is setting a dangerous example for the world when it claims that spy agencies are above the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch.
"Congress should reject this proposal outright. Otherwise, the United States will have no standing to demand humane treatment if an American falls into the hands of foreign intelligence services," he said in a statement.
The US Senate recently approved 90-9 a bill sponsored by Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham banning military and Central Intelligence Agency use of any "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment."
However, the Bush administration has approached members of Congress to place a waiver in the bill that would allow the CIA to use cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment on foreign detainees in US custody outside the United States, Human Rights Watch said.
So.. America wants to be "the only government in the world to claim a legal justification for mistreating prisoners during interrogation."
.. I have to point this out again...
..the ONLY country....
Standing for Democracy, Freedom, Peace, The Rule of Law.....???
• Aginoth:
But you're confirming my point. The English had occupied Ireland before the Irish began a terrorist campaign.
9/11, on the other hand, was not motivated by the occupation of Iraq (since it was not occupied in September 2001), nor by an occupation of Saudi Arabia (since the Saudi government was and is running that country, not the USA).
As for your closing comment — it may be that religion does more harm than good; that position is certainly arguable. The only point I was trying to make with Cyberkitten is that religion motivates a great deal of good, even if it also motivates a great deal of bad. But please — let's not get sidetracked onto that issue here.
• Cyberkitten:
You've illustrated the point very nicely. The USA wants to depict the conflict as (absolute) good vs. (absolute) evil, but perhaps the lines are a little blurrier than that.
That said, I would much rather live in the USA than in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Taliban Afghanistan. And I suspect you would, too.
Q
Q said: That said, I would much rather live in the USA than in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Taliban Afghanistan. And I suspect you would, too.
Given that choice... yes I would... but the way things are going over there (in the USA I mean)... the choice is getting harder by the day... Years ago I was a great admirer of the USA (in my teens I even wore a jacket for years with a US flag on each shoulder) but no longer. I've been on a visit.. and to be honest... I can't think of much reason to go back there. America is in serious danger of REALLY losing its way... I just hope the damage isn't too great for the rest of the world when it all goes horribly wrong...
America is in serious danger of REALLY losing its way...
Don't buy into the hype. Things here are fine. There are the usual set of problems but there are solutions to those problems and life is moving quite well here for the overwhelming majority of the populace.
Jack:
I'm impressed that you took Cyberkitten's remarks with such equanimity.
Q
Q,
There is no reason to get upset. There are lots of people who love America, many who hate it and many who are ambivalent.
She is entitled to her opinion as I am to my own.
Post a Comment
<< Home