Judging by what’s on the news channels these days, there seem to be two hot-button, foreign policy issues agitating US politicians and the general public. The first is pulling American troops out of Iraq; and the second is capturing Osama Bin laden. Let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that both these events do take place in the foreseeable future. What overall impact will they have of the ‘war on terror’? Not much.
Let’s start with Osama. The US government has recently doubled the bounty on his head to $50 million. If the previous reward of $25 million did not produce any tangible result, it is highly unlikely that $50 million will either. I don’t think the Bush Administration gets it. They are applying Western logic to a Mid-Eastern problem. Money is not the issue here. The only feasible way to capture or kill Osama is if he is betrayed by one of his inner circle. That eventuality is highly improbable. To his followers, the Sheikh – as he is known among them – is a mystical figure; a Messenger of God, if you will. He commands the type of loyalty – and fear – that Western leaders cannot comprehend. Betrayal is not an option. It would be tantamount to condemning the perpetrator’s soul to eternal damnation.
The most likely scenario is that Osama – who has been on dialysis for years – will die of natural causes. And then what? Will Al Qaeda be magically vanquished? It would be dangerously naïve to think so. To Al Qaeda and its affiliates, Osama is mostly a symbol, a rallying point. This jihad they have embarked upon is greater than any individual. In their minds, it has been ordained by Allah. If Osama dies, Allah will provide another leader. This has already been illustrated in the case of Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaeda supremo in Iraq. His killing was touted as a great victory by the US; but it made no change to the situation on the ground. If anything, the terrorist violence has gotten worse since his elimination.
It is a similar situation with the US troops in Iraq. The reality is that the presence of American troops has become almost irrelevant. The different sectarian factions in Iraq are engaged in their own private war. The US troops have become, at most, a distraction. Whether they stay, or they leave, the killing will continue. It could be argued that the US soldiers are keeping a lid, of sorts, on the prevailing mayhem – a few thousand deaths instead of tens of thousands – and that is about all they can hope to achieve. There can be no ‘victory’, in the conventional sense, no matter how many ‘surges’ take place. 160,000 American soldiers cannot control a hostile population of 30 million. The math just does not work out.
So does that mean that the war on terror is unwinnable? Yes it does; in the foreseeable future, at least. History has shown that a war is won only when one side goes on a sustained offensive. An Allied victory in World War II would not have been possible without the Normandy invasion. And going on the offensive is precisely what the West cannot do. How can you attack an enemy you cannot even locate?
All America and its allies are doing – and can do – is being defensive; and trying to prevent the next attack. That is not the way to win a war. It does not mean that the terrorists are winning either. They do not have the military capacity to defeat the West. However, they can keep their ‘enemy’ in a constant state of vigil – and fear. They can make the enemy hemorrhage billions of dollars, with occasional pin pricks. They can make ordinary citizens look constantly over their shoulders; and be suspicious of those that do not ‘fit in’.
It is already happening. The open society that the US has been justly proud of is being whittled away. America can no longer afford to welcome the ‘toiling masses, yearning to be free’. Threat levels – and the Patriot Act – have taken the place of trust and generosity.
And it is only going to get worse. Al Qaeda and its cohorts have time on their side. They are not bound by artificial timetables. In their minds, they are fighting for God – and in the divine scheme of things – time is irrelevant. The victory promised by Allah may be decades in coming. They can wait. The question is; can the West? It may have no other choice.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
Please try to investigate and connect chains of incidences in this regard. You will easily come to know about the reality. The only way to win the war against Terrorism is "US stop funding and sponsoring Terrorism."
Visit my blog on http://reality-speaks.blogspot.com/
Terrorism is a broad term for any group which uses violence to oppose another group, whether or not they are defending their own rights. Each side can refer to the other being terrorist. Nelson Mandela was on our list of terrorists during the 70s and 80s. Thomas Jefferson was on the British list of terrorists during the Revolutionary War. In fact he moved frequently during the War to keep from being caught and put to death. Jesus was considered a terrorist and tried for his crimes. By the way, he WAS put to death. Terrorism will exist as long as one group feels another group must be stopped by any means possible. Unless mankind suddenly progresses and evolves very quickly, it won't end in my lifetime.
Blessings and best wishes - S.
Generally I enjoy your articles, but this one says nothing new.
Bush said we were in for a long fight. I don't know if he realizes that it may go on as long as what happened in Ireland if we choose to stay the course. The west may not see it as a religious war but it is a religious and ideological war that will not be over for a long time. I agree that the westerners may leave the scene; but this battle will continue and if we do leave; it will continue to spread to our soil.
I first saw it in 1972. I'm sure it existed long before then.
The problem today is the level of terrorism and the amount of damage that is done with each incident.
I believe that the war on terror can be won, but it will be costly. I don't know if we can't exterminate the terrorists without harming innocents. But what is the alternative? A world of anarchy where everybody lives in fear?
Terrorists, and those who would assist them, must be sought out, captured and made an example of.
We in the UK have been under the terrorist threat since 1969 - first the IRA, now the Islamists.
It will always go on. Only the names/religions/politics will change.
First, I don't think you're anywhere close to open minded. Terrorism is an idea, not a person, persons, or group, and therefor no war can be waged on it in the conventional sense. Standing armies are useless in the face of terrorism, because it always strikes at the soft underbelly of a society. You will never stamp out terrorism, because it is a potent tool in the service of the powerless. They will never give up the only effective tool they have against a powerful nation, period. It would be much safer for the citizen, if those troops were back here guarding our borders and infrastructure, than over there stirring up that hornet's nest. We know that being in Iraq has been like miracle grow for terrorists, so why don't we try something new?
Once we stop giving credence to this silly, detrimental terminology, we can really start to attack the problems underlying terrorism, poverty, drugs, etc. These are SOCIAL issues, not "wars" between factions. We need leaders to stop using military actions that will only inflame and strengthen these groups. We need to attack the problems through economic and social avenues, not with guns and bombs and macho "axis of evil" statements.
1. War of Terror, like war on drugs, is endless.
2. War in Iraq was completed with a win 4 years ago (May 1, 2003).
3. Since then, the "Coalition" is sacrificing blood for an occupation.
4. Only the centuries old culture in the Middle East can resolve the underlying issues.
5. Sheryl O. speaks truth. Are YOU listening?
The cold war threatened to physically end the world, while the terrorists of today are not even close to surpassing traffic as a health risk. There is a very real threat to our way of life, and it comes from our fear of terrorism and the means we are willing to employ in order to rid ourselves of that fear.
If they can unilaterally abolish our constitutional rights; if they can assert no accountability whatsoever to Congressional oversight; if they can assert the power to perform the functions of the legislative and judiciary branches of our government; in short, if they can assert that they are totally immune to the rule of law, international and domestic, then what is to prevent them from unilaterally declaring martial law, cancelling the 2008 elections, throwing dissidents into prison (probably to be tortured), and ruling our country with an iron fist for many years to come?
They've already shown themselves impervious to any other attempt to reign them in. What tools do we have left other than their impeachment and removal from office?
Even if the United States was successful in wiping out ALL the terrorists in the Middle East, they are STILL THE WINNERS, because they hate/are opposed to our personal freedoms, our democratic government, our way of life. And we have sacrificed ALL of those things to a very large extent to the altar of "war".
Face it, they've already won, even if they don't blow up one more person or thing. We HANDED them their victory as soon as we agreed to succumb to the BA's stupid colored threat levels and intense airport screenings and the Patriot Act and NSA illegal spying and illegal prisions and illegal torture and dictatorship executive powers, and illegal extradition to other countries, etc., etc., etc.
The issue with terrorism, all kinds is breaking those conflicting beliefs between people, maybe why terrorism usually occurs along splinters of world views, religion, race, culture - that get out of hand. Like Sohel's post above ... are you in the US and making statements like that ... you must have some interesting internal world view to reconcile that. I know I would have a hard time attempting to talk to Sohel.
So many differences intersect along the war on terror, the name of it, who's the terrorist, the fatalistic nature of human beings, lots of others too, read the responses - pretty broad.
I think the US effort, or at least most of what the US is trying to do, and most of what I support in the war on terror is to stop this terrorism before it gets out of control. Hahaha - no, I mean really out of control. Think of what the reaction would be if a nuclear bomb went on inside the US with all attendent death and destruction and fear of another attack.
I think that Iran, Syria and God knows who else would be retaliated against massively as well as emmigrants to the west. You would see the real ugly in terms of associating beards, brown skin, Islam, Arabic, turbans, and anything that is going to make people think there is any chance that their whole lives are going to be vaporized, whether it intellectually or logically makes any sense at all.
In one way I almost find that comforting in that, I somehow cannot think that anyone on either side is going to be so stupid as to allow that to happen. On the other hand it is not hard to overestimate our species.
The thing we ought to be doing to define ... what is this terrorism thing. Study it. Find out if there is a more effective way to "attack" it than militarily. What I see is the sytem of intolerance, ignorance and repressive that has been imposed from outside on top of Islam in countries like Aghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
That machine if it insists can only be broken either by destroying the land and culture that nurtures it. How do we find a way to force it to modify itself to be tolerant of the rest of the world that is not military?
If Islam does not find a road to tolerance, it will meet escalating resistance and resentment leading utlimately to its military destruction by any means if they demand it - in my opinion, and rightly so, and the innocents who are affecting in that battle are the ones who should be fighting just as hard as we are now to stop its eventuality.
I just hope we do not destroy ourselves in the process.
I don't thinks it's exactly that. I'm pretty sure they hate us for the decadence and oppulence with which we lavish ourselves (gambling parlors, strip clubs, gas guzzlers) and I'm pretty sure they hate the capitalist snobbery we've been spreading around the world; and how our industries move to third world countries, buy or receive outrageous favors from their governments, chain locals to the sacrifices of wage living, and pollute their environments with unregulated toxic industrial wastes.
I also think they hate us for not selling life saving drugs to them at costs which can they can afford for the sake of maintaining corporate profit margins. It builds a lot of resentment in a people, watching children, family, coworkers and neighbors suffer and die when cures are locked up just down the street but are forbidden for lack of a few dimes.
I do agree that we already blew it. The actions we've committed (and which some seem able to justify) have already created more enemies than we've killed or captured. They can now justly hate us for the inhumanities we visit on their innocents.
I cringe when I travel around the world, especially to third world countries, and I see McDonald's and KFC in every town, surrounded by utter poverty. I also know how much damage we have done to many countries, exporting our corporations and exploiting their natural resources and human resources. I know it's a lot of negative we stand for, and I'm not particularly proud of that.
These are bad enough...then on top of it, we puff ourselves up with "war" and "patriotism" and open Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, we debase ourselves even further, but now we're supposed to be all proud of it. How can we hold our heads up? We are supposed to be better, so much better than that.
Paul Craig Roberts, speaking recently with Muriel Kane:
'Americans think their danger is terrorists,' said Roberts. 'They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution.
... The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren't able to perceive that.'
You left out "willing." It's the "coalition of the willing," because for awhile there, for a fleeting moment in Dark Dick's scheming "Rovian" mind, we weren't sure if NATO would actually do our bidding. He decided not to sweat the U.N. because Bolton and Senator Norm Coleman and others were doing their thing -- though it's not exactly been a complete piece of cake, this war on terrorism [aka, The Long Haaarrrd War]. 'Terrorism' is in the eye of the beholder; er, the decider -- the mind of the decider.
So, as an 'open minded' conservative you probably remember, fondly, Ronnie Raygun's contribution to the war on communism and terrorism -- seeing as how he was there not only when the wall came down, but when the long cold war on commie-ism morphed into the bloody war on terror-ism in Latin America. Not that I'm picking on Ronnie exclusively -- lord knows others on both sides of the aisle and in all walks of life have done their part -- but Ronnie cut a really wide swath, didn't he?
Open minded: Does that mean that if Hillary talks tough and promises to take out all the terrorists over a "long" war that you'll like her just as much as Rudi and all the boys? [I've noticed that Rudi calls "them" Islamic terrorists]. If there is anything worse than a plain old terrorist, it's an islamic terrorist. Rudi remembers Ronnie fondly -- that smiling congenial man [who was also castigated for his lack of smarts].
Firoze: You've done it gain -- another steamy pot boiler. I think a "war" on "anything" is an uphill push no matter how fervantly the "cons" try to sell it. They've shot their credibility wad a long time ago and have painted themselves into the brute force or martial law corner, like so many dictatorial regimes before them. Will the "folks" like it? I don't think so.
Did I ever mention any support for Rudy? I don't think so.
Did I mention Hillary in this thread? I don't think so. But since you brought it up, my problems with Hillary have less to do with her stance on the war (which I think she supports) and more on her and Bill's stepping on little people to get where they got.
Hillary and Bill are grown up middle class kids who worked hard and earnestly to get where they are. Leave them alone, Dan.
I welcome disagreement and discussion. I just find it amusing that people find it necessary to jump to their defense even before they're attacked.
I do, however, respect your opinions.
If we can't communicate, then we'll end up like congress -- a lot of grandstanding talk and little accomplishment, right? (That goes for both sides of the aisle, by the way!)
We can, of course, disagree as to whether the Bush's or the Clinton's deserve the criticism.
No, you didn't bring them up -- that's why I asked. Just curious. I was never fond of the Clintons, before I ever heard of the shennigans they were both supposedly involved in. I don't like Bill's record for "humanitarian interventions" here, there and everywhere; no better than the Bush dynasty in that regard. Thanks to all of them, we'll be trying to answer Firoze's questions for a long, long time, with or without a draw-down.
Joe T.
Whatever is wrong with blanket dislike? I dislike, to put it mildly, the thought of ongoing war as an industry. "Picking on Bush?" He and his gang deserve to be in jail for war crimes.
They blame Iraq for 9/ll? They blame the Islam religion for terrorism?
Anyway, excellent article. This administration is leading a regime of fear. We're spreading terrorism ( not supressing it ) and we MUST GET OUT!
Is it still terrorism, if they attack only military targets in occupied countries? (insurgents vs. US army)
Sheryl O. said - "they hate/are opposed to our personal freedoms, our democratic government, our way of life."
what nonsense! pls show me quotes of whr they have said that said that we Americans should change our way of life. Their demand has been to let them live life their way.. we constantly butt in & tell the world how they should live 7 wha type of governments they should have. We prefer democracy but if they don't, let them not have it. Why force it down their throats.
911 was terrorism, as was the Cole bombing since there was no
war going on and it was not done by a country.
Centrist if you knew anything of this enemy you would realize
their long - 1000+ year history of intolerance of any other
way or life. If they can control it, they do, and the do so by
making states where they are the majority relgious states
and then oppressing non-muslims.
If they do not hate our way of life why is it a death penalty
offense to practice any other religion in Saudi Arabia than
Islam. Why are Jews not allowed in the country?
Muslims are allowed separatist movements as in Pakistan
breaking away from Indian so that Muslims can have their
own state, but Jews are not allowed to have their own
state in the Middle East where they are free from Muslim
oppression and murder.
We have no until now butted in anywhere telling Muslims
what to ... it is intolerable now and it is clear they will kill
everyone who disagrees with them.
By the way, they have interfered with companies all over
the world forbidding companies that they do business with
to hire or have Jews in their employment.
You better just know what kind of people you are supporting.