|
The Wisdom of the War on Terror
By Demhas
September 22, 2003
The aim of terror is to use force, undiscriminating force in most cases, in order to meet certain declared demands. In short, it is the choosing of coerced consent instead of a negotiated settlement. The US war on terror is ultimately, the reliance on the use of force in order to exterminate the agents of terror. Arguably, such a solution may be necessary especially if faced with unreasonable elements with unreasonable demands. However, relying on brute force to coerce the subject to submission is ultimately an adoption of the same technique; hence, legitimizing what is intended to be uprooted in the first place. In the following, I would argue that war and violence in this particular case is counterproductive to say the least.
The occupation of Iraq has brought chaos, uncertainty, and anarchy. These same conditions make the perfect environment for cultivating terror and extremist groups. The fact that al-Qaeda has found refuge in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Kashmir, and Chechnya underscores this reality. Furthermore, the recent news reports from Iraq about the arrival of the so-called foreign fighters, whom soon will be recruited and trained by al-Qaeda, shows that taking a country from peace to war work in favor of creating an environment suitable for terror activities and recruiting:
"A half-dozen U.S. officials who investigate or analyze al Qaeda ... say that Iraq has become an important battleground for al Qaeda in the past several months," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said. "The officials use words such as 'magnet' and 'super magnet' to describe the attraction that Iraq has for al Qaeda and other 'jihadists,' " said Bergen."
There's more evidence now. Both Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and civilian boss L. Paul Bremer III have said that some measure of the continuing trouble in Iraq is caused by foreign terrorists who appear to have al-Qaida behind them. Organizations linked to al-Qaida have been moving men into Iraq and stepping up activity there, they say.
"Far from a new Vietnam, we appear to be heading for a new Afghanistan, Somalia or Chechnya as the next battleground between Islam and the infidels," said one official in Washington.
The US war on terror is adding more fuel to the fire in the Middle East. This administration seems to have realized that a positive change in that part of the world will depend greatly on the settlement of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. However, while the US is openly going after the Iraqi leadership including Saddam, the White House is telling Israel not to act against Arafat. If the US has the right to act against foreign heads of states, what moral and legal authority do we have to tell Israel not to eliminate a person whom they accuse of inciting and ordering terror acts? Unfortunately, this administration has set a precedent, and these are just some of the dangerous consequences.
Another precedent that we are setting is our role in the UN: at the same time, when 11 nations out of the 15 members of the Security Council voted to order Israel to rescind its government’s decision to expel or kill Arafat, the US used its veto to send that resolution to the trash bin. In doing so, it frustrated the Arabs, implicitly approved future acts of violence by Israel, and reminded the world of how hypocritical we are when it comes to the use of the veto power: just seven months ago, we criticized France for their threat to use its veto against a resolution regarding Iraq even though there were at least three other veto-wielding nations who sided with France and there was not indication that even 9 required states would support the resolution. Now not only were we the only nation that used the veto, but we were the only state that voted against the resolution given that the other three nation abstained.
Terrorism that the US is fighting is different from terrorism Israel is enlisting on its war portfolio. The US is engaged on the premise of nation’s reconstruction that will drive away extremists. Israel on the other hand continues to pound the Palestinians in the name of its security. Instead of submitting to the strong willed Sharon and his generals, the Palestinians adopted extreme measures that do not discriminate between the Israelis as they lost hope.
Security is not an Israeli privilege, it is a human right. In this case, the Israelis must accept the fact that their demands for security must acknowledge the rights of the Palestinians for security as well. After all, the more insecure the Palestinians and the more hopeless they are, the less interested they will be to even consider listening to the Israeli concerns. A good example of this state of affair can be seen in the response of a Palestinian on the eve of an Israeli military response to the August 19th bombing:
Residents of Hebron, asked last night whether they feared a harsh Israeli response to the attack, said that in the seven weeks since the cease-fire was declared, they have not felt any let-up in the Israeli pressure - so they are not terribly interested in whether the cease-fire continues or collapses. "In either case, it's all the same," they said.
The war on terror moves most parties to the extremes. As is the case in times of “war” in general, moderate voices are marginalized in favor of war generals. It happened in Israel when Sharon was elected and continued to enjoy one of the largest public approval ratings throughout what is by all accounts difficult times in the area of economics, healthcare, and education. At the same time when “peace” politicians in Israel are being sidelined, the Palestinians too bestow increasing support for the “resistance party”. In a conversation with a leading Palestinian pollster during the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas, I learned that while this Prime Minister enjoys less than 2% of the public support, the leasers of Hamas, al-Jihad, and al-Aqsa have the benefit of an impressive 67% public approval rating. Similarly, continued US war on terror will undoubtedly move the center of gravity to the right even if the war solution proves unsuccessful.
The New York Times, in an article published following the bombing of the UN building in Iraq on August, suggested in very certain terms that the US has created a “Terrorist Haven”:
Yesterday's bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad was the latest evidence that America has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and turned it into one.
Many would argue that when it comes to the oil-rich Middle East, economic interests come first. My fear is that democracy and liberty for those people become of no interest at all. Take the example of Iran: fifty years ago in a week like this one of this month, “the CIA and the British SIS orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The prime minister and his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves. Britain accused him of violating the company's legal rights and orchestrated a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged the country into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the Americans in planning a coup, an idea originally rebuffed by President Truman. But when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, cold war ideologues - determined to prevent the possibility of a Soviet takeover - ordered the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government.” The US in particular and the West in general, do not have a good track record of supporting democratic processes and democratically elected leaders if they do not fit in their schemes. The Algerian case is a powerful reminder of the West’s selective support for democracy: if democratic and free elections bring some party—or leader—disliked by the White House, Downing Street, or Palais de l'Elysée; the West exhibits routinely shameless appetite for discarding peoples’ choices in favor of dictatorial regimes. I would enlist the US administration’s refusal to deal with Arafat—an elected leader—while inviting Mr. Abbas, an appointed government member to the White House to be another great example that fits this pattern of looking for national leaders past and beyond what the people want. It is the most short-sighted and misguided policy any true democracy can be found accused off. It simply strips any country from much needed moral authority, especially if that country is engaged in nation-building processes and “liberation wars”.
Another example of unwise approaches to ending violence by sanctioning violence and injustice is the so-called “Patriot Act”. While the nation and the Congress were still shaken by the horrific attacks of September 11, the ideologue Attorney General, John Ashcroft, used fear to extract consent for giving up some of the most fundamental values that constituted the moral force of America: right to privacy. You don’t want to go grocery-shopping on a very empty stomach, and in a similar fashion, you don’t enact laws based on impermanent emotions. Furthermore, Ashcroft was willing to bend the law in order to have his way when he had Guy A. Lewis, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys, circulate a memo to federal prosecutors encouraging them to lobby congressional members and warn them against the "the potentially deleterious effects" of an amendment recently approved in the House.
This administration seems to be blackmailing the American taxpayers: give us more cash or you will not be safe at home. This may sound to be a harsh statement, but if you listen to the president these days, you will not help it but make the connection that they will be using the terrorists attacks to get more money and more consent from the American voters. Here is an example of this new strategy:
“Why spend money in Iraq? Because it’s going to make America more secure. It’s part of the war on terror and it’s a necessary part of the war on terror. I believe a peaceful Iraq will have ramifications beyond the Iraqi border that will enable generations of Americans to live more peacefully,” Bush said. “I need to continue to explain to the American people why it’s important we succeed in Iraq. A free and peaceful Iraq is essential to the war on terror,” he said. “Sometimes it’s hard to get through the filter. I will continue to make the case.” He added before a handful of newspapers from states important to his re-election campaign, such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Washington and Oregon.
It is possible that if this administration continues to act unilaterally and abuse its position as the uncontested superpower in the world today, we will find ourselves standing alone on every issue. That is not a way to bring about security to the Americans here or abroad. Today, more than any other time in history, American citizens find themselves unsafe in foreign countries and American products are boycotted by millions of people from South America to South East Asia. It is about time that we recognize that our own security hinges on acknowledging the security of all other people around the world. That is the only and sure way to defeat terrorism, violence, tyranny, and injustice.
Archives:
Note:
Well argued
commentaries are welcome, please email your opinion to op-ed@majalla.org;
Op-Ed articles are not peer-reviewed.
New Op-Ed articles
are published monthly, and as special edition when warranted
|
|
