|
^^It depends on what you mean by "a war on terror". The trouble is that "terrorism" isn't something tangible that can be prevented via the use of force (though it can be indefinately subdued so long as the war is precise and sustained enough) but rather it is an ideology, held primarily by "the common man", meaning that even the deposition of an official body - such as government, military etc. - is no guarantee that the ideology can be prevented from spreading. So, when you speak of waging a war on "terror", what should the military force be directed against? Did the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq impact severely on the terrorist organisations' ability to operate, or did these wars merely intensify the hatred? The US (and it's coalition - the UK, Australia etc.) are fighting a war that they cannot possibly win. All they can do is target the physical manifestations of this extremist ideology (in the form of "terrorists", training camps, arms dealers etc.) but you cannot prevent the spread of an ideology through military force alone. Just ask the Isrealis on the board if 30 odd years of dismantling Palestinian terrorist organisations (the manifestation of the Palestinians' hatred for Isreal) have been successful in preventing terrorism from occurring on their own soil.
There's no easy way out, but there are steps that can - and I agree, should - be taken to prevent terrorist attacks and also, hopefully, prevent the spread of terrorist ideology. Firstly, I agree with you Occrider that the scourge of terrorism is a global problem and that co-operation between nations is needed to dismantle the larger, international, better organised groups. This means - are you listening George? - you do not go around threating members of the UN (or, in another instance, the entire globe - "you're either with us or against us") or declare a nigh on divine right to pursue these matters unilaterally, without the support of other (pertinent) nations. Consider how many terrorist arrests were made in Germany in the period after Sept 11 and before the commencement of the Iraq war debate: do you think the US are going to get the same level of help and co-operation now that the Germans have been dismissed as an irrelevent part of "old Europe"? This demonstration of neo-con US "diplomacy" is not constructive in the war on terror, it only seeks to divide a coalition who, otherwise, pose a much greater threat to the operability of terrorist organisations.
So a willing coalition (made up of more than three nations offering active support and a coalition led by Rwanda and Iceland offering "moral" support) is the first step. This probably won't prevent the spread of terrorism or terrorist activity, but it will almost certainly prevent the possibility of large events such as Sept 11 - which require huge amounts of willing personel, huge amounts of money and, above all lots of time - from happening again.
Once we have a large coalition behind us, each committed to actively weeding out would-be terrorists, we then need to ask the question that has not been asked enough - why do they hate us? Why do they want us dead? Posing this is not an attempt to appease the terrorists or to negotiate with them, merely to understand the psychology of the average terrorist and how we may be able to prevent this disease from spreading, or even from being formed in the first place. Where does this immense pool of hatred originate from?
I don't think I have any definitive answers. It probably has a lot to do with the west's history of intervention and colonisation in the Middle-East, which - in the eyes of Muslim fanatics at least - still continues today. Even though we may not understand it, the mere presense of western troops in Islamic nations (particularly in Saudi Arabia) angers many Muslim people greatly, much more so when - if the reports I read post-Sept 11 are true - these troops are American and are stationed near holy sites. Amrozi - the man currently on trial for the Bali bombing - said that his hatred of Australians stemmed from their impious immorality (which is why a night-club was targetted) and, primarily, because he saw the massive influx of Australian tourists to the area (which means that many parts of Bali - given its dependancy on tourist dollars - resemble Australian culture much more than Indonesian culture) as an affront to his culture (both Muslim and Indonesian) and, you guessed it, as an attempt at "western imperialism". Now given this, do you think that western intervention in Islamic territories and nations is wise or in any way necessary? Would Bin Laden's hatred of the US be so fervent(i.e. fervent enough to manifest itself in ways we know all too well), for instance, if the US hadn't stationed large amounts of troops in Saudi Arabia against the populations will? Would there have been a terrorist attack against Australian's if we didn't flock en masse to a small Indonesian island for our holidays in complete ignorance of local customs and culture?
I think the west needs to realise it is not any more "enlightened" than any other race, civilization or generation in history, and that our "disdain" - for want of a better word - for the idea that the Arabic people are fit to rule themselves - and that we must therefore "guide" them towards "democracy" and "freedom" by slicing up territories into arbitrary new nations (no, I'm not talking about Isreal) and alternatively backing/deposing equally dispicable governments - constitutes - let's not gloss it over - a vivid example of perceived cultural superiority. The Brittish did it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the US have been doing it for the past 50 years. I think in this sense I can sympathise with the western-hating Muslims (not the terrorists): what other feeling am I supposed to have towards a coalition of nations who have a long history of oppressing my people and launching wars against them since the 11th century; who continue to occupy my land and support/decry local regimes I despise/love?
This is just a start, but I don't feel that any amount of "action" can ease the anti-western sentiment the necessarily precedes the sorts of terrorist activity we see today. The key to preventing the spread of terrorism is not to murder all would be terrorists and the rogue governments that support them (or, alteratively, to appease any of these bodies) but merely to prevent - as best we can - the possibility of anti-western ideologies forming in the first place. Much damage has been done, but I don't think it's too late.
Oh, and to finish off with, I though it was worth pointing out that the war on terror - aimed at preventing the deaths of innocents - has so far killed in the vicinity of 10,000. Terrorism, on the other hand - even if we include Bali and the completely unrelated Chechnyan seige - has claimed about 1/20th of that total by my estimates over the same period, even with liberal figures. There's a reason we view the former total as "necessary collateral damage" sustained in the pursuit of a higher, greater aim and the latter as utterly, morally reprehensible, but it's too late on my side of the planet to get into cultural theory for the time being methinks. :-/
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
What is Bush doing?
