Alternative Insight

Perpetual War

President Bush has temporarily softened his initial definition of the terrorist attack as "a call to war." The feelings of doom are subsiding. Intelligence agencies, rather than military action, are quickly locating the persons and links of the world's most dreadful terrorist organizations.

President Bush's initial call to war recalls previous U.S. solutions to international problems. Since the establishment of the American Republic in 1789, the United States has often used military action as an instrument of foreign policy, for survival, expansion, preservation, containment and protection. Two world wars, each categorized as wars to end all wars, have been succeeded by other wars. During the last decade, the U.S. has engaged in the Gulf War, followed that war with continuous bombings and attacks on Iraq, had a military adventure in Somalia, in which it attempted to suppress one of the warring Somali groups, led NATO in the attack on Yugoslavia, and bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and suspected terrorist bases in Afghanistan in response to terrorist attacks on American embassies and the U.S.S. Cole. The war on drugs has resulted in a military engagement in Panama and covert actions in Columbia. Operations in Columbia continue today. Also, the aftermath of the Clinton administration involvement in the Mid-East dispute had tragic consequences.

The results of these aggressive actions have been:

In the twentieth century, America's military engagements occurred only outside continental United States. Now, attacks of warlike nature have harmed thousands of Americans in the United States' most cherished cities. Americans have directly seen the face of war. Who wants more? Use of raw military power, the general policy of American strategists which has doomed the United States to perpetual war, remains on hold, though not entirely. The U.S. demanded without negotiations or compromise that the Taliban follow U.S. directives and deliver Osama Bin Laden, suspected mastermind of the horrific terrorist attack. The demands were made before the investigations clarified all aspects of international terrorism.

The anger of the American people and a government's duty to soothe that anger are understandable. The situation propelled President Bush to locate a target and speak from power. By designating Osama Bin Laden as the principal suspect and by taking an "all win" position in demanding the Taliban surrender him before all the facts of the terrorist action had been known, the United States left itself open to the suspicion that the evidence could be shaped to fit the U.S. position. The accusation that Bin Laden was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks is also understandable Nevertheless, to the purveyors of terror and their followers, Bin Laden became more heroic and the Taliban became victimized. The U.S. initial policy might have been more effective with a more subdued approach that emphasized Bin Laden as a principal suspect without uncompromising demands for the Taliban to surrender him. If the U.S. cannot retreat from its roads to war then those who fear the consequences of wars will retreat from the United States.

The "who"of the terrorist equation needs to be completely resolved.
The conspirators did not exhibit any military training or military paraphernalia.They coordinated their conspiratorial tactics in rooms and motels, which seemed to be primarily in the United Kingdom and the United States but could have been anywhere in the world. As in previous terrorist actions against the United States, the conspirators did not carry arms. Instead they exhibited knowledge of making and delivering bombs, terrorist activities that have no specific "learning" locations.

Strangely, no group immediately voiced responsibility for the 9/11 errorist action. Steven Simon, a former member of the National Security Council who is writing a book on religiously inspired terrorism, has an explanation: "There is no claim of responsibility because there is only one audience, and that is God," (quoted in Time Magazine, October 1, 2001, Roots Of Rage:Grievances over U.S. policy in the Middle East, Lisa Beyer)

Without any specific organization taking responsibility, the terrorists have been preferably described as being part of an organization called al Qaeda. Identification by only a name does not explain the complex workings and form of the well planned operation. It begs for a larger answer. It recalls the naming of terrorist organizations during Spain during the 1970's. When the Spanish government was unable to identify the culprits in a terrorist action, it attributed the action to the GRAPO. The GRAPO remained only a word for shadowy terrorists, and their administration and leaders never became identified. The current conspirators have a definite relation to radical Islamic fundamentalism. It is possible that this terrorist organization has more direct links to the Armed Islamic Group or the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, two Algerian groups on President Bush's target list of terrorist organizations.

The "why" of the terrorism must be clearly defined.
Steven Simon, a former member of the National Security Coucil, has been quoted as stating, "This is not violence in the service of some practical program." However, Egyptian writer Abd al-Salam Faraj has defined a program in a pamphlet called The Neglected Duty. In this pamphlet he argued that holy war was necessary to defend not just Muslims but Muslim dignity.(Time Magazine, October 1, 2001, Roots Of Rage:Grievances over U.S. policy in the Middle East, Lisa Beyer) The attacks seem to have some relation to the latter intention. They have been directed specifically against America and its institutions. One assumption for the appalling act is that the terrorists considered the United States intruded on sacred grounds of Islam and became a threat to the cultural, moral and political survival of Islam. U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, together with U.S. bombings and sanctions of Iraq that have impoverished the Iraq people, have affected the sanctity of the two most sacred lands and historical heritages of Moslem civilization. U.S. support for Israel, which desires sovereignty of total Jerusalem, adds to the perception that the U.S. encourages threats to Islam. The "why" of the attack is shaping in a specific direction--a terrorist action proceeding from the belief that American power threatens Islam and must be challenged. U.S. global reach has precipitated global terrorism. A suitable strategy demands that the "why" is known "sans doubt". Otherwise, the strategy will be only reckless revenge that will lead to more revenge.

Are any nations conspirators to the international terrorist equation?
Wouldn't any nation that directly assisted in preparing this terrorist action have preferably used its own citizens to instruct the terrorists in flying planes rather than have them wander the United States in broken English and seek a flight training facility? Wouldn't the nation have also supplied the terrorists with a position in the United States so they could more easily mix with the populace and gain resources? Nations might have given indoctrination, moral and some loose physical and economic support to groups antagonistic to the United States, but the investigation has not uncovered any direct involvement by a foreign country in this specific terrorist action. It is possible, although unlikely, that as the investigation proceeds, some direct involvement by a foreign nation might be uncovered

Demands by the United States and European nations that countries should surrender all known terrorists is a positive step in combating international terrorism. However, the edict applies to all nations -- and Western nations should realize their own obligations. The United States provided assistance to the Contras in their attacks against the sovereign state of Nicaragua and permitted Cuban exiles to use Florida as a platform to launch attacks against Cuba. Egypt and Sri Lanka have previously accused Great Britain of housing known conspirators against their governments and voiced unheeded complaints to the British government. The United States bombs Iraq and provides assistance to Iraqi dissidents. Wouldn't the U.S. government expect Iraq to retaliate? Imagine if a foreign country continually bombed the United States and provided aid to a rebel force within its borders? How would America react?

Why are there proposed military actions?
Do proposed military actions have other objectives than crippling international terrorism.

The CIA has been described as having banners over several of its departmental offices. There is Bin Laden avenue, Saddam street and Quaddafi court. The United States has evidently decided that it must rid the world of the leaders and nations that it qualifies as disturbing the stability of the world community. Most of the western world would probably be in accord, or at least be complacent, if Bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were removed from power. Quaddafi, especially since he has been prominent in efforts to assist and revitalize African nations, would receive sympathy if attacked. Placing the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which opposes Quaddafi, on Bush's list of 15 terrorist organizations, assists in guaranteeing in Quaddafi's survival.

Efforts to remove America's most despised could be done by reinforcing the very operations which the United States has legitimately protested --terrorism and covert actions followed by a military mop-up. It's apparent that the United States' first consideration is to remove the Taliban regime from power. There are many reasons for this maneuver:

Although there is no evidence that the Iraqi government took part in either the recent or previous terrorist actions, the U.S. has shown eagerness to use the terrorist actions to finally rid the world of Saddam Hussein. It must eliminate Saddam or else its aggressive actions against Iraq, that consist of intensive sanctions and almost daily bombings, will have proved ineffective and worthless. The policy of resolving disputes by war has led the U.S. into an uncomfortable position:

The United States could probably achieve easy military victories and replace the present regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The political futures of these countries then becomes uncertain. The Vietnamese war, one of the many misguided wars that the United States fought to "protect its interests," taught that lesson. Even if the U.S. had won that engagement, a post-war Vietnam had no acceptable administration to unite the people. Post-war regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq would be equally elusive. Anarchy and further strife among other radical Islamic groups might continue and affect adjacent countries such as Pakistan. Pakistan authorities have already warned the U.S. government of this dilemma. In Iraq, a pro-Iranian Shiite regime could emerge that would locate Iranian influence at the Saudi Arabia border and further agitate the region.

And that's not all! Military action provokes flights of refugees, creates unpredictable social and economic catastrophes, and has disastrous effects on American life and the American economy. Already, Pakistan is faced with a catastrophe of an estimated 2 million refugees fleeing Afghanistan. The horrific loss of innocent life from the terrorist actions is appalling. Why have one human tragedy lead to other human tragedies? Nor is it certain that military action will eliminate terrorism. It might create more enemies and possibly exacerbate terrorism. Military cures might prove worse than the diseases.

What should the United States do?
The more effective responses to the international terrorist actions have used intelligence sources to ferret out the conspiracy cells and their connections. Targeted police actions that search for and locate conspirators and their associates, and then destroy the terrorist networks, have been the initiative against the international terrorism. They have shown that specific targeted police actions can accomplish desired objectives more easily than broad military actions

U.S. military strategists can release their fingers from the triggers, temporarily refrain from continuing a perpetual war, and develop a long term strategy that will contain unacceptable regimes and provide smooth transitions to more acceptable regimes. If a "new strategic look" arises, then the "new strategy" should be all inclusive and consider the economic and social impacts of globalization.

The tremendous rush in advancing technology and furthering of global prosperity does not benefit everyone. A great part of the world does not have the conscience and conviction to accept the moral, cultural, social and economic forces that accompany the global expansionism. Threatened groups will respond with aggressive actions. It might be preferable to slow globalization and permit newer generations to develop the capacity and commitment that allow acceptance of he changes that are being thrust upon them.

Meanwhile, the United States could carry forward with a new policy that could stabilize the region, alleviate the terrorist pressure on its citizens, and unite the Arab countries to respect U.S. interests--settle the conflict in Israel/Palestine. If this settlement considers the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, it will indicate to the Arab peoples that the United States has finally emerged as a neutral participant and has a clear vision to obtain a just solution to a continuous problem. A just solution to the conflict that is acceptable to the Arab nations would eliminate the principal incentive of radical fundamentalists, and this result would make Arab governments feel less threatened. The road to stability and peace in the Mid-East would receive its greatest impetus.

Terrorism and the struggle against it have many forms.
International terrorism exports people to commit severe hostile actions in foreign countries. This unique form of terrorism describes the recent terrorist actions against the United States. A legitimate American response to this terrorism engages all resources, intelligence and police, working together with other governments, to eradicate the terrorist cells. Police actions, that might include special military forces rather than complete military actions, might be necessary for eliminating terrorist bases in less cooperative foreign countries.

Local terrorism arises from internal conflicts, such as in Northern Ireland, Spain, Sri Lanka, Israel, etc. In these cases, the terrorism is part of an internal conflict or rebellion in which the terror tactics proceed from an inability for the rebel party to use conventional military means to advantage. A United States role should make certain it does not increase the terrorism, does not harm America's interests, does not provoke antagonism against the United States so that it endangers the lives of the American people, and assists in solutions that consider the injustices and grievances that caused the terrorism.

State sponsored terrorism uses military adventures and covert actions to subdue opponents in other states. It leads to other forms of terrorism and eventually to war. The United States owes its citizens an examination of its role in state sponsored terrorism, and in directly causing or indirectly provoking it. Failing to engage in this examination and taking corrective action situates America in perpetual war.

alternativeinsight
Jan 1, 2002

HOME PAGE     MAIN PAGE

alternativeinsight@earthlink.net