Page 3 of
4 The core
misconceptions in the 'war on
terror' By John Feffer
countries are emboldened to justify
attacks on their enemies as preemptive in nature.
The casting of counter-terrorism in the
language of war has justified extraordinary means
such as rendition, the seizing of terrorism
suspects and transporting them to places where
they can be interrogated and tortured. By
resorting to these extralegal
tactics, the United States
sets dangerous international precedents. Citing
the US example, another country's secret service
could abduct American tourists in Paris on
suspicion of terrorism, transport them to a third
country, and torture the suspects into confessing.
With the "war on terrorism", the
administration and Congress have given the
Pentagon a blank check. Military spending has
risen dramatically since 2001. In 2003, reflecting
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, military
spending increased nearly 28% and passed the $500
billion threshold. For 2008, the administration
has requested $623 billion. [10] Not including
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon
spending has increased 35% since 2001. [11] Even
after taking over Congress in the 2006 midterm
elections, the Democrats have not challenged the
bloated military budget.
Finally, a "war"
suggests that victory is possible and terrorism
can be extinguished. But terrorist networks are
decentralized, and new leaders emerge to replace
older ones. Even if one group surrenders or
disbands, it has no necessary influence on any
other groups. Police never speak of ending crime,
only controlling and reducing it. The same applies
to terrorism. Perhaps acknowledging this basic
insight, the House Armed Services Committee
removed the phrase "global war on terror" from the
2008 defense budget.
Misconception: Terrorists are
attacking "our" way of life.
Terrorists
have traditionally pursued narrow political ends.
The Irish Republican Army wanted to oust the
British and unite Ireland. The Basque ETA, the
Corsican FLNC, the Palestinian Liberation
Organization, and the Kurdish PKK all have wanted
independence for their countries. Once these aims
are achieved, the terrorist organizations either
disappear or become official political entities.
For instance, the Stern Gang, an Israeli terrorist
organization, became absorbed in the Israeli army
after the declaration of the country's
independence.
Al-Qaeda, because of its
transnational aspirations, is a new type of
terrorist organization. It wants to awaken and
inspire the Muslim world. While it envisions a
long struggle against the West, its first targets
are the Arab governments that have suppressed
radical Islamic movements. Its final goal is to
re-establish a pan-Islamic caliphate or state.
This grand vision suffers from several
problems. Al-Qaeda derives its strength from its
narrow objectives of resisting the US occupation
of Iraq and Afghanistan. The larger goal of
establishing a caliphate motivates only a handful
of people. Al-Qaeda is also not a centralized
organization that can dictate policy to its
members. Its more militant adherents are largely
focused on resisting US power projection in the
Middle East and Central Asia.
Terrorists
are, by and large, attacking the policies of the
US government, not a Western way of life. If these
policies change, particularly in the Middle East,
terrorist organizations would lose a major
organizing tool. A change in US policy in the
Middle East - withdrawing from Iraq, providing
more reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan,
pressuring Arab allies to democratize, brokering a
two-state peace deal between Israel and Palestine
- would deprive al-Qaeda of its mobilizing
symbols. Despite its myriad divisions, the Islamic
world has united in opposition to current US
military policy. If US policy changes, then
diversity will return to the foreground, and the
notion of an Islamic caliphate will become even
more improbable a goal than it currently is.
The roots of terrorist support lie in
despair. Poverty alone is not responsible for
terrorism, or else Haiti and Burkina Faso would be
terrorist strongholds. And oppressive state
structures, too, are not sufficient, or else North
Korean citizens would be among the ranks of the
world's terrorists. Rather, the despair that
generates terrorism derives from a combination of
unjust economic, political, and geopolitical
conditions. Prosperity and a greater degree of
self-determination - which is, arguably, "our way"
of life - is considerably appealing throughout the
Muslim world, even among communities that today
produce or support terrorist operations.
Finally, after September 11, the victims
of terrorism have not been, by and large,
Americans. Half the victims of terrorism in 2006
were Muslim and most were from Iraq. Only 28 US
citizens died in terrorist attacks in 2006. [12]
Indeed, as political scientist John Mueller has
argued recently in Foreign Affairs, the terrorist
threat to the United States has been greatly
exaggerated. No terrorist attacks have taken place
on American soil since 2001, and investigators
have not turned up any real al-Qaeda cells in the
United States. "The massive and expensive homeland
security apparatus erected since 9/11," Mueller
writes, "may be persecuting some, spying on many,
inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the
United States against an enemy that scarcely
exists." [13]
A just security policy
Once we address the core misconceptions of
US counter-terrorism policy, the fear begins to
lift. Terrorism is not the most important threat
facing the world. Military tactics are largely
counter-productive for they elevate the status of
the terrorists and also create conditions that
help spur recruitment. Terrorists are not bent on
destroying "our" way of life but are animated by
particular ideologies and derive their support
from opposition to specific US foreign policies.
Only when we put terrorism in proper perspective
can we start to think about appropriate solutions.
Four major building blocks support a just
counter-terrorism policy: improving homeland
security, strengthening legal systems, promoting
democracy and human rights, and addressing the
root causes of terrorism.
Terrorism is not
the most important threat facing the world or
Americans. But September 11 happened, and we must
prevent another attack like it from happening
again. An ounce of prevention is better than a
pound of the Bush administration's purported cure
of a "global war". Prevention entails tightened
border security, improved intelligence and
oversight of intelligence agencies, strengthened
protections for critical infrastructure, and
denying terrorists access to weapons of mass
destruction, conventional weapons, and other items
that can be used as weapons. Mitigating the
effects of terrorist attacks requires honing
disaster preparedness and emergency response plans
and strengthening the infrastructures and public
services that might
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
