english.daralhayat.com 2008/12/04 21:42 GMT

The War on Terror Has Not Succeeded ... The Reasons: Preemptive Wars and Outmoded Ideological Positions

Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat 2004/09/10

Russia has joined the United States and Israel in adopting the doctrines of preemptive wars and preventative strikes in fighting terrorism-a move that further diminishes the prospects of conflict resolution through diplomacy and political dialogue and reinforces the principle of settlement through military means. The terrorists have succeeded in bringing the world to this juncture, but politicians have used the war on terrorism as an excuse for pushing outmoded ideological positions and biased political strategies. The war on terrorism will not succeed as long as governments continue to adopt policies that weaken and undermine necessary popular resistance to the use of terror-policies such as waging preemptive wars and using terrorism as a pretext for rejecting political solutions. Defeating terrorism requires mobilizing the popular base in Arab and Islamic countries against the use of terrorism as a means of protest in order to isolate extremists who advocate the use of such means. It also requires putting an end to governments exploiting the war on terror by relegating other legitimate political struggles to the rank of terrorism. This in turn makes it vital for the American, Russian, and Israeli peoples to rise up against government exploitation of their anger and fears of terrorism by making them pawns of policies of revenge, which are at once short-sighted and fundamentally damaging to future generations everywhere.

The massacre at Beslan's middle school this week took terrorism to new, shameful heights by the hostage-taking of children and their slaughter in the hundreds during the ensuing battle with Russian forces. The massacre was committed in the name of Chechens to focus attention on their struggle against the Russian government-its excessive use of military force and refusal to negotiate a political solution.

This miserable operation served only to strip Chechens of any claims to a just cause and to forever taint their cause with unfathomable filth. It also helped the Russian president Vladimir Putin realize his dream of amassing world sympathy in his fight against the Chechens. It provided him with the ammunition he needed in implementing the preemptive principle in launching strikes against Chechnya and beyond it against the broader Middle East region, and whenever he might so desire. This is what the hostage-taking of children, mothers, and teachers brings upon its perpetrators, no matter what their cause happens to be. And this too is how causes get lost in the labyrinths of failure and revenge.

Revenge has become the global war cry of governments and organizations alike in their fight against terror. The endless calls for acts of hatred and revenge have reached scary and futile levels-from the halls of party conventions in the US, to the broader Middle East, to Russia and Chechnya, and to the caves of Afghanistan.

The terrorist acts of September 11 three years ago have been nothing short of a curse upon Arabs and Muslims, perhaps for decades-not just years-to come. 9/11 is no longer merely a date marking the terror that struck at America, bringing down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York.

9/11 has gone beyond the status of an event impossible for Americans to forget or forgive. It has become the source of many a pledge and promise that every American politician feels obligated to make.

Those in the Arab and Islamic worlds who rejoiced at what they considered a blow to American "arrogance"-a lesson that reduced the Twin Towers to rubble-are guilty of utter ignorance, not only because of the futility of revenge but because the terror of 9/11-carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims-has brought upon the Arab and Islamic region tragedies the worst of which are yet to come.

At this historical juncture, it would be impossible for the world to understand or come to terms with America without comprehending the psychological impact of 9/11 on both her people and government. Her psychological state is indeed a complicated one-triggered initially by the shock of terror on American soil, followed by the attempt to comprehend the meaning of the airplane attacks on New York and Washington by the al-Qaeda network, then the grappling with the questions of "why they hate us" and "how could they dare," followed by the promises to punish those that dared, then the mounting fears, and then the promise to "kill them before they kill us."

While the average American might have reacted with genuine fear of terrorism and harbored feelings of hatred and vengeance towards the perpetrators of 9/11, the American administration, in contrast, has been calculating in making 9/11 the key to implementing its policies and strategies both at the ideological and electoral levels. And the Republican Party was not alone in evoking the memory of 9/11 at the opening and close of its convention in New York. The Democratic Party did its share of calling forth 9/11 during its convention in Boston to arouse nationalistic and patriotic sentiments.

The difference is that the Democratic Party made a mistake in portraying its presidential candidate John Kerry as a soldier who fought in Vietnam thirty years ago while the Republican Party portrayed its candidate George W. Bush as the present leader of the war on terror-a war that was started on the morning of 9/11, only three years ago.

By building on the psychological impact of 9/11, the Republican Party was not concerned with an exaggeration here or an excess there as long as it succeeded in reawakening old fears as justification for revenge. Its convention spanned a full four days of incitement, of spreading hate and resentment, and of beating the drums of preemptive wars.

The calling up of the terrorist acts of 9/11 was done with the intention of creating animosity towards the "new enemy" and instilling fear in the hearts of Americans of this terrorist-enemy's potential to possess weapons of mass destruction. Vice President Dick Cheney did not stop at fear-mongering during the convention last week. He went on to boast about what in his assessment were the achievements of the current administration.

He warned just two days ago that America is at risk of being once again struck by terrorists if she makes the wrong choice between Bush and Kerry. He also insinuated that Kerry would revert to America's pre-9/11 defensive approach, in contrast to the preemptive, offensive approach that Bush adopted in the wake of 9/11. His intention goes beyond casting doubt on Kerry. Cheney's goal is to garner support for the notion that the Bush administration is seeking to engrain in the American mind-a notion founded on taking the war on terror outside American borders to protect American lives and American national security.

This kind of rhetoric is in general pleasing to American ears despite its tone of racism and abuse of other countries by turning them into battlegrounds for the war on terrorism without regard to the human cost unless it involves American lives. George W. Bush was able to advance the notion of defending the United States by "staying on the offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home," as he said in his second-term nomination acceptance speech at the Republican convention.

The lack of evidence linking the deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to the terrorist acts of 9/11 did not stop the American president from making such a link during the Republican convention. Similarly, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the invasion did not weaken Bush's resolve in justifying the war. Boasting about the Iraq war as a response to the terrorism of 9/11, Bush said, "Do I forget the lessons of September 11^th and take the word of a madman or do I take action to defend our country?"

The American consciousness is prone to forgetfulness and fickleness and is often subject to the impressions of the moment. The Republican Party played on this consciousness, knowing full well that the events of September 11, 2001, occupy a unique place in the American memory and are unmatched by any events in recent American history. The Republican Party thus portrayed the entire presidential election battle as being concerned with "how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism."

The Republican Party has succeeded in deceiving many Americans into thinking that preemptive wars are useful and necessary. The American president prided himself on what he called the "success of our strategy" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and broader Middle East region in its entirety, purposely ignoring the fact that America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ongoing and have not concluded with the success he claims. He attributed Saudi Arabia's campaign against terrorists and Libya's dismantling of its weapons programs to the resolve of the American strategy, thus implying that the strategy of preemptive strikes is what led both countries to cooperate.

By convincing himself and the American people that the successes of the war on terror are a result of his resolve in the preemptive doctrine, the American president presents a real danger; namely, his exclusive reliance on militarism in handling affairs. In his speech to the Republican convention last week, George Bush reduced his policy towards the "broader Middle East" to the word "freedom"-the magical remedy used for resolving political conflicts and rallying the people of the region behind America in the war on terror. He spoke with a tone of religious fervor about his faith in freedom as "a transformational force."

Naturally, the people of the "broader Middle East" desire freedom and yearn for it-this much is undisputed. And certainly the vast majority of them abhor the regimes that rule and oppress them. But undoubtedly they do not place all the blame for their predicament on their regimes and governments. They also hold the US accountable for implementing adverse policies that have included the protection of those regimes to guarantee the cheap flow of oil and the creation of terrorism in Afghanistan to defeat Communism.

These people do not believe the American administration's calls for freedom especially when accompanied by calls for revenge. They do not trust in freedom attained by way of the preemptive doctrine. They will not be America's allies in the war on terrorism simply by virtue of her promises of freedom.

What would surely make the people of the broader Middle East region strategic allies in the war on terrorism are the profitable "investments" that the terrorist organizations have themselves made in the region and the tragedies that they have brought upon its population.

These people will not ally themselves with an "opposition" that uses terrorism and the killing of innocents to get into power no matter how much they wish to rid themselves of their governments. But they also do not wish to get rid of their regimes by getting on the American bandwagon-so long as American policy remains prejudiced toward Arab causes and the American Administration continues to be full of apologists for Israel who disdain Arabs and Muslims and whose driving motives are guaranteeing Israeli superiority and hegemony.

Hideous terrorist acts such as the hostage-taking of children in Russia or journalists in Iraq have angered the people of the broader Middle East region and caused them to engage in self-criticism. In the wake of 9/11, such sentiments began to emerge among a large segment of the Arab and Muslim public in solidarity with Americans, only to be squandered by the ensuing American policies toward the region. An unprecedented opportunity to deal a final blow to terrorist and extremist groups in the region was wasted by the American administration, which chose instead to pursue policies that strengthened extremism and weakened moderation, destroying any hopes for an awakening in Arab and Muslim quarters.

If Arab and Muslim impatience towards terrorism and its perpetrators is to translate into a push for unified internal reform, then people around the world must pressure their governments not to once again miss out on the opportunities and go back to the old preemption-style fight against terror. It is incumbent upon people to demand of their governments that they stop using the war on terror as justification for policies that impose biased military solutions such as those being imposed on Chechens and Palestinians, while ending any prospects of political solutions.

It is clear that there will not be any compromises or negotiations between governments and organizations or between leaders and individuals in the war on terror.

The only hope for this war not becoming a war of extinction resides with the world public. World public opinion will continue being what it is-an ineffective opinion-as long as the world public continues to put its fate in the hands of others. This time, opinions are not enough. People around the world will either engage themselves genuinely by informing the powers-that-be that they are no longer products to be consumed, or else they face inevitable death.

Finally, the Arabs are themselves at a threat of paying the highest price for the curse of terrorism. It is time for the Arabs to give deep thought to the implications of the war on terror and to reflect on a strategy for preempting such implications-a strategy that would surprise all of the players in the war on terror, a strategy that shouts "enough is enough" to those calling for revenge.

<h1>The War on Terror Has Not Succeeded ... The Reasons: Preemptive Wars and Outmoded Ideological Positions</h1><h4>Raghida Dergham     Al-Hayat     2004/09/10</h4>Russia has joined the United States and Israel in adopting the doctrines of preemptive wars and preventative strikes in fighting terrorism-a move that further diminishes the prospects of conflict resolution through diplomacy and political dialogue and reinforces the principle of settlement through military means. The terrorists have succeeded in bringing the world to this juncture, but politicians have used the war on terrorism as an excuse for pushing outmoded ideological positions and biased political strategies. The war on terrorism will not succeed as long as governments continue to adopt policies that weaken and undermine necessary popular resistance to the use of terror-policies such as waging preemptive wars and using terrorism as a pretext for rejecting political solutions. Defeating terrorism requires mobilizing the popular base in Arab and Islamic countries against the use of terrorism as a means of protest in order to isolate extremists who advocate the use of such means. It also requires putting an end to governments exploiting the war on terror by relegating other legitimate political struggles to the rank of terrorism. This in turn makes it vital for the American, Russian, and Israeli peoples to rise up against government exploitation of their anger and fears of terrorism by making them pawns of policies of revenge, which are at once short-sighted and fundamentally damaging to future generations everywhere.   The massacre at Beslan's middle school this week took terrorism to new, shameful heights by the hostage-taking of children and their slaughter in the hundreds during the ensuing battle with Russian forces. The massacre was committed in the name of Chechens to focus attention on their struggle against the Russian government-its excessive use of military force and refusal to negotiate a political solution.This miserable operation served only to strip Chechens of any claims to a just cause and to forever taint their cause with unfathomable filth. It also helped the Russian president Vladimir Putin realize his dream of amassing world sympathy in his fight against the Chechens. It provided him with the ammunition he needed in implementing the preemptive principle in launching strikes against Chechnya and beyond it against the broader Middle East region, and whenever he might so desire. This is what the hostage-taking of children, mothers, and teachers brings upon its perpetrators, no matter what their cause happens to be. And this too is how causes get lost in the labyrinths of failure and revenge.Revenge has become the global war cry of governments and organizations alike in their fight against terror. The endless calls for acts of hatred and revenge have reached scary and futile levels-from the halls of party conventions in the US, to the broader Middle East, to Russia and Chechnya, and to the caves of Afghanistan.The terrorist acts of September 11 three years ago have been nothing short of a curse upon Arabs and Muslims, perhaps for decades-not just years-to come. 9/11 is no longer merely a date marking the terror that struck at America, bringing down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York.9/11 has gone beyond the status of an event impossible for Americans to forget or forgive. It has become the source of many a pledge and promise that every American politician feels obligated to make.Those in the Arab and Islamic worlds who rejoiced at what they considered a blow to American "arrogance"-a lesson that reduced the Twin Towers to rubble-are guilty of utter ignorance, not only because of the futility of revenge but because the terror of 9/11-carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims-has brought upon the Arab and Islamic region tragedies the worst of which are yet to come.At this historical juncture, it would be impossible for the world to understand or come to terms with America without comprehending the psychological impact of 9/11 on both her people and government. Her psychological state is indeed a complicated one-triggered initially by the shock of terror on American soil, followed by the attempt to comprehend the meaning of the airplane attacks on New York and Washington by the al-Qaeda network, then the grappling with the questions of "why they hate us" and "how could they dare," followed by the promises to punish those that dared, then the mounting fears, and then the promise to "kill them before they kill us."  While the average American might have reacted with genuine fear of terrorism and harbored feelings of hatred and vengeance towards the perpetrators of 9/11, the American administration, in contrast, has been calculating in making 9/11 the key to implementing its policies and strategies both at the ideological and electoral levels. And the Republican Party was not alone in evoking the memory of 9/11 at the opening and close of its convention in New York. The Democratic Party did its share of calling forth 9/11 during its convention in Boston to arouse nationalistic and patriotic sentiments.The difference is that the Democratic Party made a mistake in portraying its presidential candidate John Kerry as a soldier who fought in Vietnam thirty years ago while the Republican Party portrayed its candidate George W. Bush as the present leader of the war on terror-a war that was started on the morning of 9/11, only three years ago.By building on the psychological impact of 9/11, the Republican Party was not concerned with an exaggeration here or an excess there as long as it succeeded in reawakening old fears as justification for revenge. Its convention spanned a full four days of incitement, of spreading hate and resentment, and of beating the drums of preemptive wars.The calling up of the terrorist acts of 9/11 was done with the intention of creating animosity towards the "new enemy" and instilling fear in the hearts of Americans of this terrorist-enemy's potential to possess weapons of mass destruction. Vice President Dick Cheney did not stop at fear-mongering during the convention last week. He went on to boast about what in his assessment were the achievements of the current administration.He warned just two days ago that America is at risk of being once again struck by terrorists if she makes the wrong choice between Bush and Kerry. He also insinuated that Kerry would revert to America's pre-9/11 defensive approach, in contrast to the preemptive, offensive approach that Bush adopted in the wake of 9/11. His intention goes beyond casting doubt on Kerry. Cheney's goal is to garner support for the notion that the Bush administration is seeking to engrain in the American mind-a notion founded on taking the war on terror outside American borders to protect American lives and American national security.This kind of rhetoric is in general pleasing to American ears despite its tone of racism and abuse of other countries by turning them into battlegrounds for the war on terrorism without regard to the human cost unless it involves American lives. George W. Bush was able to advance the notion of defending the United States by "staying on the offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home," as he said in his second-term nomination acceptance speech at the Republican convention.The lack of evidence linking the deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to the terrorist acts of 9/11 did not stop the American president from making such a link during the Republican convention. Similarly, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the invasion did not weaken Bush's resolve in justifying the war. Boasting about the Iraq war as a response to the terrorism of 9/11, Bush said, "Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman or do I take action to defend our country?"The American consciousness is prone to forgetfulness and fickleness and is often subject to the impressions of the moment. The Republican Party played on this consciousness, knowing full well that the events of September 11, 2001, occupy a unique place in the American memory and are unmatched by any events in recent American history. The Republican Party thus portrayed the entire presidential election battle as being concerned with "how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism."The Republican Party has succeeded in deceiving many Americans into thinking that preemptive wars are useful and necessary. The American president prided himself on what he called the "success of our strategy" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and broader Middle East region in its entirety, purposely ignoring the fact that America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ongoing and have not concluded with the success he claims. He attributed Saudi Arabia's campaign against terrorists and Libya's dismantling of its weapons programs to the resolve of the American strategy, thus implying that the strategy of preemptive strikes is what led both countries to cooperate.By convincing himself and the American people that the successes of the war on terror are a result of his resolve in the preemptive doctrine, the American president presents a real danger; namely, his exclusive reliance on militarism in handling affairs. In his speech to the Republican convention last week, George Bush reduced his policy towards the "broader Middle East" to the word "freedom"-the magical remedy used for resolving political conflicts and rallying the people of the region behind America in the war on terror. He spoke with a tone of religious fervor about his faith in freedom as "a transformational force."Naturally, the people of the "broader Middle East" desire freedom and yearn for it-this much is undisputed. And certainly the vast majority of them abhor the regimes that rule and oppress them. But undoubtedly they do not place all the blame for their predicament on their regimes and governments. They also hold the US accountable for implementing adverse policies that have included the protection of those regimes to guarantee the cheap flow of oil and the creation of terrorism in Afghanistan to defeat Communism.These people do not believe the American administration's calls for freedom especially when accompanied by calls for revenge. They do not trust in freedom attained by way of the preemptive doctrine. They will not be America's allies in the war on terrorism simply by virtue of her promises of freedom.What would surely make the people of the broader Middle East region strategic allies in the war on terrorism are the profitable "investments" that the terrorist organizations have themselves made in the region and the tragedies that they have brought upon its population.These people will not ally themselves with an "opposition" that uses terrorism and the killing of innocents to get into power no matter how much they wish to rid themselves of their governments. But they also do not wish to get rid of their regimes by getting on the American bandwagon-so long as American policy remains prejudiced toward Arab causes and the American Administration continues to be full of apologists for Israel who disdain Arabs and Muslims and whose driving motives are guaranteeing Israeli superiority and hegemony.Hideous terrorist acts such as the hostage-taking of children in Russia or journalists in Iraq have angered the people of the broader Middle East region and caused them to engage in self-criticism. In the wake of 9/11, such sentiments began to emerge among a large segment of the Arab and Muslim public in solidarity with Americans, only to be squandered by the ensuing American policies toward the region. An unprecedented opportunity to deal a final blow to terrorist and extremist groups in the region was wasted by the American administration, which chose instead to pursue policies that strengthened extremism and weakened moderation, destroying any hopes for an awakening in Arab and Muslim quarters.If Arab and Muslim impatience towards terrorism and its perpetrators is to translate into a push for unified internal reform, then people around the world must pressure their governments not to once again miss out on the opportunities and go back to the old preemption-style fight against terror. It is incumbent upon people to demand of their governments that they stop using the war on terror as justification for policies that impose biased military solutions such as those being imposed on Chechens and Palestinians, while ending any prospects of political solutions.It is clear that there will not be any compromises or negotiations between governments and organizations or between leaders and individuals in the war on terror.The only hope for this war not becoming a war of extinction resides with the world public. World public opinion will continue being what it is-an ineffective opinion-as long as the world public continues to put its fate in the hands of others. This time, opinions are not enough. People around the world will either engage themselves genuinely by informing the powers-that-be that they are no longer products to be consumed, or else they face inevitable death.Finally, the Arabs are themselves at a threat of paying the highest price for the curse of terrorism. It is time for the Arabs to give deep thought to the implications of the war on terror and to reflect on a strategy for preempting such implications-a strategy that would surprise all of the players in the war on terror, a strategy that shouts "enough is enough" to those calling for revenge.