Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

08-26-2005, 06:55 AM

Are we winning the War on Terror?

Politicophile has kindly provided some background on who We are, and what Winning might entail. It seems reasonable then for me to begin with a definition of my own. In that respect, I would like to briefly explore what the phrase "War on Terror" itself means.

If we take the phrase literally, then we might expect it to describe a coordinated military campaign against those who adopt terrorist tactics. If that is the case, then we might be able to measure our effectiveness by counting the numbers of people across the world who have been injured or killed by terrorist tactics, and compare those numbers to the number of people killed or injured in similar incidents before the War on Terror started.

But before we look at the figures, let us first define what exactly are these tactics of terror. Examples might include; Hijacking, hostage taking, suicide bombing, rpg attacks, mortars, car/van/truck bombs and most spectacularly, the acts of 911.

Utilising any one of these tactics itself is not always enough to be deemed terrorism, we must also remember that a true terrorist attack must be perpetrated by non military personnel, and is normally indiscriminate or largely directed towards civilians. Finally, it must also have a political element. Killing lots of civilians for own personal reasons is not generally considered terrorism.

So with this rather literal definition in mind, "The War on Terrorism" and the question of its success should be based around the military steps we are taking around the world in order to lower the instances of terrorist activity.

However, there are of course elements to this war that are not based in the literal translation of a phrase, and require some cultural background. I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that the "War on Terror" was begun in response to the audacious attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11th September 2001. We believe that the attacks took place under the orders of the now infamous (but at the time, almost completely unknown) Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, an Islamist group who fought the Soviets and found refuge in the mountains of Afghanistan and sheltered there under the protection of the Taliban - an ultra-conservative Islamist theocracy that stepped into the power vacuum after the Soviets had given up trying to occupy that country using overwhelming military forces. (sound familiar?)

So what do these things tell us when looked at in regards to the War on Terror (WOT)? They tell us that it is more than just a fight against unconventional tactics. They tell us that the WOT is directed against the types of Islamist extremists who choose to denounce and attack the west. And they tell us that the word 'Terrorist' really means 'Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist' or more expressly 'Caliphatists' if we wish to focus on those who follow Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, and leave out the Palestinians or the Chechens - which must be the case considering Politicophile's definition of who 'We' are.

It is worth noting at this point that the US administration has stopped using the term "War on Terror" in its press conferences, preferring now the far less emotive phrase, the "global struggle against extremism". Why did they make the name change if the "War on Terror" was going so well?

OK, so now we know what it is - are we winning it?

I don't think it is necessary at this stage to list off all the terrorist attacks around the world to show that no, we are not winning.

But why, with all the effort we've put in - why are we not winning?

I think that is because of the nature of terrorism, and the ease with which an act of terrorism can be committed. If one was so inclined, performing an act of terrorism would not be a very difficult thing to do. Anyone can do it. It doesn't cost a lot of money. It doesn't need extensive training to become a human bomb. It doesn't require fancy technology. It doesn't require anything at all to succeed except conviction, faith and determination. And how exactly has the war on terror been addressing these most dangerous of weapons?

Not at all.

In fact, I would argue that previously parochial nobodies like Osama Bin Laden and his organisation have actually been made stronger by having the WOT rallied against them. They were able to deliver the most blatant slap in the face to the most powerful nation in the world, who, rather than quietly hunt them down with a team of discrete intelligence and special forces operatives, decided to orchestrate an overwhelming global display of force. It was a PR dream for the beleaguered fundamentalists.

Between the bunker busters and the regime changes, and despite the best efforts of the largest, most powerful and highest funded millitarises in the world, these amateurs still evade, and some even say, in the case of Spain, have even deterred the "coalition of the willing". They have been elevated to the status of heroes now by their continued defiance. Their words are broadcast around the world and keenly listened to by a generation of young disenfranchised Muslims who wouldn't have paid the religious fanatic any notice at all prior to the war. They would have dismissed his ravings as lunatic fringe, but now they see the suffering of powerless people like themselves in Baghdad, or the detainees of Guantanamo, or the treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib at the hands of the west and they see that here is someone who stood up to all that and, against all odds, succeeded, and continues to succeed in wounding the American goliath.

Islamic fundamentalism, expressed as suicide terrorism, requires ideology, it requires young idealistic boys to believe that they are fighting a just and honourable war. All it needs is conviction, faith and determination. The war on terrorism, as it has been played out so far as a massive military campaign has helped validate those beliefs, helped strengthen those convictions, and it has shown that when the weak have faith, they can win against the mighty. It has provided them with the determination to continue. And it has made Osama Bin Laden, the man who declared war on a super power, and won, into a hero in the eyes of his target audience.

So I say no, we are not winning the war on terror.

08-26-2005, 06:55 AM	#5 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Are we winning the War on Terror? Politicophile has kindly provided some background on who We are, and what Winning might entail. It seems reasonable then for me to begin with a definition of my own. In that respect, I would like to briefly explore what the phrase "War on Terror" itself means. If we take the phrase literally, then we might expect it to describe a coordinated military campaign against those who adopt terrorist tactics. If that is the case, then we might be able to measure our effectiveness by counting the numbers of people across the world who have been injured or killed by terrorist tactics, and compare those numbers to the number of people killed or injured in similar incidents before the War on Terror started. But before we look at the figures, let us first define what exactly are these tactics of terror. Examples might include; Hijacking, hostage taking, suicide bombing, rpg attacks, mortars, car/van/truck bombs and most spectacularly, the acts of 911. Utilising any one of these tactics itself is not always enough to be deemed terrorism, we must also remember that a true terrorist attack must be perpetrated by non military personnel, and is normally indiscriminate or largely directed towards civilians. Finally, it must also have a political element. Killing lots of civilians for own personal reasons is not generally considered terrorism. So with this rather literal definition in mind, "The War on Terrorism" and the question of its success should be based around the military steps we are taking around the world in order to lower the instances of terrorist activity. However, there are of course elements to this war that are not based in the literal translation of a phrase, and require some cultural background. I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that the "War on Terror" was begun in response to the audacious attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11th September 2001. We believe that the attacks took place under the orders of the now infamous (but at the time, almost completely unknown) Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, an Islamist group who fought the Soviets and found refuge in the mountains of Afghanistan and sheltered there under the protection of the Taliban - an ultra-conservative Islamist theocracy that stepped into the power vacuum after the Soviets had given up trying to occupy that country using overwhelming military forces. (sound familiar?) So what do these things tell us when looked at in regards to the War on Terror (WOT)? They tell us that it is more than just a fight against unconventional tactics. They tell us that the WOT is directed against the types of Islamist extremists who choose to denounce and attack the west. And they tell us that the word 'Terrorist' really means 'Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist' or more expressly 'Caliphatists' if we wish to focus on those who follow Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, and leave out the Palestinians or the Chechens - which must be the case considering Politicophile's definition of who 'We' are. It is worth noting at this point that the US administration has stopped using the term "War on Terror" in its press conferences, preferring now the far less emotive phrase, the "global struggle against extremism". Why did they make the name change if the "War on Terror" was going so well? OK, so now we know what it is - are we winning it? I don't think it is necessary at this stage to list off all the terrorist attacks around the world to show that no, we are not winning. But why, with all the effort we've put in - why are we not winning? I think that is because of the nature of terrorism, and the ease with which an act of terrorism can be committed. If one was so inclined, performing an act of terrorism would not be a very difficult thing to do. Anyone can do it. It doesn't cost a lot of money. It doesn't need extensive training to become a human bomb. It doesn't require fancy technology. It doesn't require anything at all to succeed except conviction, faith and determination. And how exactly has the war on terror been addressing these most dangerous of weapons? Not at all. In fact, I would argue that previously parochial nobodies like Osama Bin Laden and his organisation have actually been made stronger by having the WOT rallied against them. They were able to deliver the most blatant slap in the face to the most powerful nation in the world, who, rather than quietly hunt them down with a team of discrete intelligence and special forces operatives, decided to orchestrate an overwhelming global display of force. It was a PR dream for the beleaguered fundamentalists. Between the bunker busters and the regime changes, and despite the best efforts of the largest, most powerful and highest funded millitarises in the world, these amateurs still evade, and some even say, in the case of Spain, have even deterred the "coalition of the willing". They have been elevated to the status of heroes now by their continued defiance. Their words are broadcast around the world and keenly listened to by a generation of young disenfranchised Muslims who wouldn't have paid the religious fanatic any notice at all prior to the war. They would have dismissed his ravings as lunatic fringe, but now they see the suffering of powerless people like themselves in Baghdad, or the detainees of Guantanamo, or the treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib at the hands of the west and they see that here is someone who stood up to all that and, against all odds, succeeded, and continues to succeed in wounding the American goliath. Islamic fundamentalism, expressed as suicide terrorism, requires ideology, it requires young idealistic boys to believe that they are fighting a just and honourable war. All it needs is conviction, faith and determination. The war on terrorism, as it has been played out so far as a massive military campaign has helped validate those beliefs, helped strengthen those convictions, and it has shown that when the weak have faith, they can win against the mighty. It has provided them with the determination to continue. And it has made Osama Bin Laden, the man who declared war on a super power, and won, into a hero in the eyes of his target audience. So I say no, we are not winning the war on terror.