Why the West is losing the 'war on terror'

By

Stuart Yates

The first reason why the 'West' is losing and will lose the 'war on terrorism' is because of the definition of the issue as a war. Wars, armed conflicts, can only be fought between parties who not only disagree with each other but who seek to dominate or subdue the other. Hitler sought to dominate Europe, the Allies - whether or not they originally sought to - had to subdue Hitler's Germany in order to end the Second World War. The US says it is not imperialistic and therefore does not seek to dominate or subdue other nations (the word 'dominate' does crop up frequently in American establishment references to international issues, but let that pass). Al-Qaeda - if such an organisation exists outside the mindsets of the American neo-conservatives - does not seek to subdue or dominate the US or other countries. Inflict damage, maybe severe damage, on Western nations, but my understanding is that this is partly to preserve Islamic culture by forcefully deterring both foreign and their own nationals from introducing non-Islamic ideas, behaviour and beliefs into their countries. Other motivations include resentment at the inequality of wealth in the world and the global exploitation of the poor nations by the rich. None of these reasons justifies the use of terror, but neither is the 'war on terrorism' response justified.

Disagreements about ways of life can never be solved militarily. A military 'solution' merely brings one to the subjugation stage - the subdued people's ideas and culture simply go underground. Vietnam is a stark example of how that was literally enacted in the face of a sustained attempt to subdue that nation. Beyond the subjugation stage - if the military option has been exercised - is the dialogue stage. This is not about 'winning the peace'. Dialogue is not about winning or losing. Dialogue is about getting on together, compromising, respecting differences. But the terrorists do not want to compromise, I hear you cry. This is true, but when did terrorist movements represent the majority in a country? Indeed, when did the democratically elected leaders represent the majority of their countries? Certainly George Bush and Tony Blair were not elected by the majority - merely a majority of those who voted and in the case of Bush's first term even that is questionable.

We have only to look at the countries of the former Soviet Union to see how short-lasting subjugation is. It is extremely costly to maintain. The Roman Empire did last, but had the advantages that Roman culture was demonstrably superior and the Romans were ruthless, yet it still fell to the 'barbarians'. Western culture is not demonstrably superior than other world and local cultures and the inherent weakness - in foreign policy terms - of democracies means that the Roman ruthlessness is not available to us. Every four or five years there is likely to be a change of government and therefore of foreign policy.

So if we put aside the term 'war on terrorism' we can look at what, presumably, the intentions are: to reduce the activities of terrorists and reduce the risk of terrorism. How might a country wanting to achieve these objectives set about this? Well, before we can examine this we have to look at whether these are the objectives of the US. It is not absolutely clear that this is what the US - either the administration or the people - actually want to do. There is a lot of rhetoric about bringing democracy to the rest of the world and a good deal of concern to make America safer. These aims may not be compatible with what is implied by the term 'war on terrorism' or my presumed rephrasing of this into the objectives above. Bringing democracy to the rest of the world may be a noble aim but could create more terrorists in that some people may resent interference in their countries affairs. Indeed, this perceived interference and the effects on indigenous cultures form part of the roots of terrorism. What is good for the US (or the West in general) is not, necessarily, good for others. It is the rescuer role in the drama triangle, readily interchanged with the persecutor and victim roles (See The Drama Triangle in International Relations). Making America safer - as a primary aim - clearly risks increasing terrorism if making America safer means bombing Afghanistan and Iraq, threatening Syria, Iran, North Korea et al. America may indeed be safer from imminent attack from those planning attacks - if those people are disabled by the attacks - but violence begets violence, others take the place of the 'martyrs' and America is not safer in the medium and longer term. We should remember that each culture creates its own martyrs - America views the victims of 9/11 as such, Iraq the civilian victims of coalition bombing etc - but martyrdom increases resolve and closes minds, leading to a spiral of increasing violence. As Gandhi said "An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind". The aims of the US are to some extent contradictory and progress in one reduces progress in another.

There are other aspects which reduce the chances of the present strategy of reducing terrorism. The strategy is based on lies. The invasion of Iraq was based on weapons of mass destruction, an imminent threat (45 minutes! - on the same scale as the real threat to the UK of Hitler's forces massed on the other side of the English Channel. Come on!) to the UK at least and links between Iraq and the so-called al-Qaeda network. None of these supposed justifications were true and it is interesting, in the UK at least, that opposition politicians are now publicly stating that Tony Blair was aware of the inaccuracies and exaggerations in the notorious dossier. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney still peddle the lies even when independent enquiries have shown them to be lies. Lies get found out and fatally weaken over time strategies based on them.

Those countries at the forefront of this 'war' which links eliminating terror with the maintenance of what is referred to as 'civilised democratic values' as well as bringing these values to 'rogue states' have been busy reducing the basis of those values in their own countries, taking advantage of the fear engendered by the attacks of September 11th and indeed fomenting those fears by creating a mythical enemy under the guise of a world-wide, organised network called al-Qaeda. In the US and UK are laws that a dictator would love to have in place - it is bad law that relies on the goodwill of those in power to administer it fairly. The citizens of the US and UK are at risk from their own states: in the event of serious civil unrest a government in either country has access to powers that sweep away many basic civil rights and access to justice. In both countries foreign nationals have minimal rights. In the US, due to the shameful establishment and operation at Guantanamo Bay, we not only see the elimination of any rights to any, let alone a fair, process of justice, but a regime of torture. As far as I know the UK does not torture those locked up in Belmarsh without charge and without trial, but then the British establishment has always been better at keeping secrets than the US establishment and it is disturbing that the British government, whilst holding its hands up in horror at the use of torture, is quietly accepting testimony extracted under torture abroad. Is it any wonder that citizens of non-Western countries see little difference between their own regimes and those of the West and are not especially inclined to risk their own lives in opposing terrorism in their own country for the sake of Western countries?

Another glaring stance of the US and UK in particular, (the rest of Europe is a little more impartial), which undermines any cooperation that people in the rest of the world might give against terrorism directed at the West is the blatant support of Israel against the Palestinians. Israel receives a huge amount of aid even now from the US in spite of being one of the world's richest countries, a state that systematically practices terrorism against another race and has oppressed that race over a period of more than half a century. There is no credibility in a 'war on terrorism' being waged by a country which supports state terrorism being waged elsewhere. The contradiction screams at the rest of the world but leaders such as George Bush and Tony Blair are deaf. It is not surprising that some turn to terrorism to try to make them hear.

Another factor that weakens the chances of this so-called war being won is the grotesque inequality between the developed and the under-developed world and the desire of the former to maintain and increase that inequality. The power of developed nations is abused in trade negotiations, military and economic threats ensure that nations toe the line. The tensions created are unsustainable. The global capitalist system - unchecked as the current economic orthodoxy proclaims - maintains a fundamentally unequal situation. One example of the determination of the wealthy nations to hang on to their privileged position is George Bush's refusal to entertain US action on global warming on the basis that it would cost American jobs. If the fate of humanity takes second place to American jobs, what chance is there for poorer countries. Again, a minority will see terror as the only way of fighting back against such inequality.

The US maintains a huge military apparatus and is intent on not only maintaining its military dominance in the world but extending it. The intention - vain hope - is to ensure that no future comparative power - China, or Europe, or any other nightmare scenarios that lurk in the minds of the strategists - could ever rival the US. I say vain hope. It is in the nature of empires to believe that theirs will be the first empire to last forever. The Americans are just the latest to labour under that delusion. Like all empires it will decay from within. In the meantime however, military dominance belongs to the US and it is used around the world, usually where there is oil, but in some other places too. Given that the only super power uses its raw power to get its way, it is not surprising that some see force as the only way of opposing this oppressive use of military and economic power. As equivalent force is not available terrorist tactics are used instead. It is the obvious response but misguided and not very effective except as protest and the successful, if unintended diminution of civilised standards of life in the US and its associates.

The most grave charge to level against the US administration is that the 'war on terror' is not just an error of judgement, it is the deliberate creation of a conflict to suit America's intention to stay dominant and to exert control over its people through fear which allows draconian laws and action to be condoned. There is some evidence for this. The attack on Afghanistan went ahead despite the Taliban offer to hand over Osama bin Laden even though his capture was the official reason for the invasion. We all know how all arguments against invading Iraq were brushed aside. Very soon after September 11th the US administration was talking in terms of a lengthy 'war'. It was termed lengthy for three reasons: they knew that such tactics would not succeed quickly, if at all; they were intent on creating a fearsome 'enemy' to cow their own people; a fearsome enemy was necessary to provide a national purpose and a distraction from domestic troubles, an old political trick to maintain control. It is sad that such transparent tactics and the accompanying state propaganda machine have worked as demonstrated by the re-election of George Bush. State propaganda machine? Yes indeed, it's called the 'free press'. The BBC is relatively independent but one wonders when there is no mention of the downing of several US helicopters during the attack on Fallujah for instance. The Internet remains the only resource to get detailed information - not all of it true of course, one had to discriminate - on what is going on in the world, indeed in one's own country. It is why China recently took further action to close down Internet access across China and continues to try and stop its citizens from obtaining independent information.

The 'war in terror' cannot succeed, but alternative tactics could succeed in reducing terrorism and the risk of terrorism. They involve no military action but seek to address the points made above. Firstly, if we believe in our 'democratic' values (Tony Blair is starting to use the word like a mantra) then why do we dismantle them in the face of an unproven threat? We need to hold fast to them, encourage people's belief in their own essential safety - we are in far more danger of being killed on the road than from a terrorist attack - and demonstrate that our system works for the good of our people (there may be some problems here, but this is nothing to do with terrorism) and that we are not going to be panicked into jettisoning those freedoms. In this way we demonstrate our difference from totalitarian regimes. Positive belief in values and a way of life are always more effective than defending something through fear. The anti-terrorism laws should go and anyone suspected of terrorism should be subject to the normal process of justice. That everyone is subject to the same processes of law is one of the fundamental principles on which a free society is built. We have allowed that principle to be carelessly thrown away.

That is only the start, the bedrock without which we are lost, the bedrock that the US and UK governments in particular have eroded so dangerously. Secondly we need to start to address the lies that prop up our own regimes, we need to develop a genuinely free press which holds governments to account. If the US and the UK were genuinely free societies with real freedom of expression and access to information, I believe that neither George Bush nor Tony Blair would still hold their positions. Certainly in the UK we live in an elected dictatorship: Tony Blair uses his 'mandate' to run the country as he wishes for five years at a time irrespective of the wishes of the British public on any particular issue. He knows he can get away with this because there is no powerful enough alternative at present. What an example of democracy to all those countries we are trying to persuade to join the club: millions of Britons demonstrate against going to war against Iraq but we invade Iraq anyway. The only difference between that and a totalitarian regime is that we are allowed to demonstrate (although that rings hollow to those filmed and beaten up in the process) rather not being allowed, but such protest ends up as token gesture. Token gesture lead to anger and anger can lead to civil unrest. Here I pause, as I meet up with the real power of our draconian anti-terrorism laws. Although I know and state my opposition to terrorism and in more normal times would express myself more freely, I am aware that if I do not strictly limit my expression to my own views, then I could be considered to be in breach of those laws and being seen to be encouraging terrorism. I believe I cannot even invite people to share my views let alone encourage to take any action. It reminds me of the Combination Laws that prevented the formation of Trades Unions - how ironic that a Labour Government (in name only) should preside over the introduction of similar laws. I am not paranoid, the new laws are very powerful.

Thirdly we need to share. A simple concept but which is so alien to the present economic and ethical culture of the West. We do not share with each other, we compete with each other, so we do not - corporately - share any significant part of our wealth with other countries. There is no intrinsic merit or virtue in having been born in the West. There is no merit or virtue - even if we live within our means, which many do not - in living beyond our needs - which we all do in the West - whilst millions of others through no fault of their own live beneath their basic needs. Whether or not such blatant inequality nurtures terrorism, which I believe it does, it gives the lie to our claim to be civilised, to live in a fair society. It is part of the lie that we live, part of the lie that our governments peddle to us as the truth. At the individual level much splendid giving and sharing is undertaken but it is spite of our culture not because of it and the world knows this. The world knows the hollowness of Western governments' claims to be decent and honourable and rightly resists the importation of such cultures to their own countries. This is a cultural change and has to take time. It cannot be instant but any movement in this direction will have an effect. It will be noted. It will provide some hope. It will generate a response and weaken the appeal of terrorism. There are countless people around the world desperate for evidence of Western decency and fairness towards the rest of the world which they can use to confront those who advocate terror. These people are on the side of humanity. Unbridled selfishness, greed, disregard for others that are lauded (in different terms, of course) in the West are against humanity. We have to decide as individuals which side we are on: humanity as a whole or the 'every person for him/herself' culture which pervades the West. If we are on the side of humanity, then we have to decide what to do individually - doing nothing is not an option in the present state of the world - and what we can do to influence the prevailing culture.

Fourthly we have to deal fairly with conflict in the Middle East, to cease being so blatantly pro-Israel. There are faults on both sides but the US has been and continues to be so partisan that there is no credibility in the US being the honest broker that she purports to be. Even after the death of Yasser Arafat the US administration is still churning out the same mantra that the Palestinians must cease violence before any dialogue can take place. Would the US see it the same way if, for example, China was occupying the whole of the US apart from, say, South Dakota and Maine, most of the US citizens were living in refugee camps in South Dakota and Maine or had fled into Canada with no right of return and those citizens in South Dakota and Maine were still under the military rule of China? I think not. I believe that, rightly or wrongly, US citizens would resist, would fight. The Palestinians and the Israelis deserve a genuine dialogue facilitated impartially - the UN in some form is the only credible body to carry it out and to initiate it without pre-conditions. The present situation, dominated and directed by violence sends the very clear message to would be terrorists: violence is the way to keep what you have and to get what you want. The alternative path of dialogue - which we know has to take place eventually - offers a different way forward, a different way of resolving conflict which provides much less fertile ground for terrorism to grow.

Finally we have to examine why so much money is spent on armaments in the West, partly because of how that money could be better spent, even in our own societies, and partly because of what message that expenditure sends to the rest of the world. The message that we believe military power is important, necessary, to our security and well-being. Where is the enemy which Stealth bombers and missiles based in space will combat? To paraphrase something I heard recently, of what use is the latest plane or missile against someone with explosives tied around the waist? Of what use is nuclear power against the suicide bomber? Israel knows the answer to that one. Zero. The amount spent on arms in the West is an affront to humanity and sends the message, loudly and clearly yet again, that violence is the only way to get one's own way. It is not the only way. It is not even the best way. It is certainly not the cheapest way, however you measure the cost.

If Western governments examined these issues, free from the lobbying of the large corporations which have their own narrow vested interests, with a view to the whole world and not just to their own countries, and went forward in some ways in the direction outlined above, then terrorism would inevitably, over time, lose its impetus, the reason for its existence. Terrorism would have no soil in which to take root, in contrast to the use of violence which is so rich a soil for the terrorists. George Bush and his main henchman Tony Blair are terrorism's gardeners, providing more and more ground in which terrorism can grow and thrive. It is these leaders who pose the greater danger to the world.

November 2004

This article is also available at Blogger News Network.