Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Can Terrorism Be Beaten by Military Means? - Empire? - Global Policy Forum Can Terrorism Be Beaten by Military Means?
By Ruhi Khan *
Yellow Times
February 15, 2003
It won't be surprising if some day it may be said that the 21st century began on September 11, 2001. It seems quite true as we now witness how the attacks have turned out to be harbingers of a new, epochal war soon bringing about a phenomenal change in the world order.
Since September 11, the words "terrorism" and "war against terrorism" have been splashed all around us. Suddenly, this concept (terrorism) has gained widespread momentum. We will first focus on the concept of "terrorism" and then reflect on the application of the term "war" in this context and analyze the appropriateness of using military action to fight terrorism.
Terrorism lies in the eyes of the beholder
New definitions of terrorism have emerged. Every country has a definition customized to suit its needs. To the Americans, terrorists can now be equated to al-Qaeda; for the Russians, it's the Chechen fighters; Israel would call the Palestinian Authority terrorists; and for Indians, it would be Pakistan. In fact, the reverse can also be applied in each case.
Even the dictionary definition is rather ambiguous. More importantly, whose "terrorism" is whose "resistance" or "a fight for freedom"? The Palestinians call their suicide bombers "martyrs in a freedom struggle" whereas the Israelis term them "terrorists." Quite a matter of perspectives, isn't it?
Also, political alliances at different timelines determine whom the terrorists are. Let us look at just one ironic situation from the plethora of such examples in history. Reflecting back on March 21, 1983, President Reagan and the Congress proclaimed an "Afghan Day" for these "extraordinary people" (now "Taliban terrorists") fighting for "the ideals we in this country hold most dear." And then in 1985, Reagan welcomed the "freedom-fighters/mujahedeen" in the White House and declared them the "moral equivalents of our Founding Fathers"! And in less then two decades, these very people have topped their lists of terrorists. The CIA, which played an important role in the making of the Taliban, today seeks their very destruction.
It is probably true that, to some extent, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. One nation's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Hence, coining a single definition of terrorism and sketching a definitive criterion of a terrorist would probably be a Herculean task if not impossible.
"War against Terrorism" is not a metaphor!
On September 13, 2001, President Bush said, "We have just seen the first war of the 21st Century." One could argue that the term "war" does not qualify for the events of that day. Wars are traditionally acts of aggression or defense waged by recognized governments against other recognized governments, or factions within a territory fighting for recognition or geographical control. War uses state/faction-sanctioned combatants.
Au contraire, terrorism is aimed at inflicting indiscriminate and random violence on innocent civilians. Terrorists hold no official sanction of a recognized nation-state. These fighters are fuelled by their allegiance to a specific cause: cultural, religious or ethnic that crosses political borders. They receive their funding through multiple channels: some recognized governments, private funding sources and renegade coalitions. These fighters, rather than seeking territory or seizing power, aim for the destabilization of a particular ruler or a policy change.
President Bush has declared "War against Terrorism." When one declares war on poverty or drugs or AIDS, we know that "war" is a metaphor. It involves mobilizing forces: more intellectual than physical to fight against the conditions that give rise to it. We don't shoot the poor or the drug addicts or AIDS victims. How many of us think that the war that America has declared on terrorism is a metaphor? Judging by the above criteria, we would be tempted to say that it isn't. But it is and one with enormously powerful consequences.
Real wars are not metaphors as they have a beginning and an end. But this anti-terrorism war can never end. That is one sign that it is not a war but, rather, a mandate for indiscriminate expansion of the use of American power. Most other nations have been quick to grasp this idea of self-declared and unquestionable power play and have waged their own war against "terrorism" in their land, in turn accelerating the terrorism activity there. The Arab-Israeli and Kashmir disputes have gotten more (not less) violent.
Since this "war against terrorism" is a metaphor, doesn't it make more sense to use intellectual and diplomatic forces rather than march thousands of soldiers off to the battlefield with an arsenal that could wipe a country off the surface of the earth?
In fact, such a war alone could prove futile in this scenario simply because the enemy we are dealing with is virtual -- they are everywhere yet they are nowhere.
The enemy: A virtual state
The real significance of September 11 is that for five centuries, it has taken a state to destroy another state. Now we are entering a period in which a small number of people, operating without overt state sponsorship but using the enormous power of modern computers, biogenetic pathogens, air transport and even small nuclear and chemical weapons, will be able to exploit the tremendous vulnerabilities of contemporary open societies.
Let us focus on the group held responsible for the attacks of September 11. Al-Qaeda represents a new and profoundly dangerous kind of organization -- a "virtual state." A virtual state absorbs certain characteristics of other states: trained army and intelligence cadre; source of revenue; civil service and even a welfare system. However, its strategic strength lies in it being borderless i.e. it lacks a definable location on the map.
America and her allies have waged war against a virtual state. But since these virtual states are non-existent on the map, the target would be the "axis of evil" in military operations. Let us look closely at the futility of such a war.
Can military action fight terrorism?
We will now focus, in particular, on Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and judge the appropriateness of using military action against a virtual enemy.
The acting assistant director of the FBI's counter-terrorism division, J.T. Caruso, estimates that as a result of OEF, al-Qaeda's capacity to commit "horrific acts" has been reduced by 30 percent. Caruso expects that the capture of bin Laden would cause a "stuttering" in al-Qaeda operations, but not necessarily a "pause" due to the decentralized nature of the organization.
However, as we can see, OEF aggravated the humanitarian crisis and unleashed greater venom against the West in Afghanistan. (Point to note: These are conditions that contribute tremendously to the breeding of more terrorists.)
The Taliban regime bore only a tangent relationship to al-Qaeda's international activities. In fact, most of the al-Qaeda facilities and most of the foreign troops had to do with the civil war there. (Point to note: The training camps in Afghanistan for the civil war were previously aided by the CIA.) Most of the organization's capabilities to conduct far reaching terrorist acts resides outside of Afghanistan, and thus fell beyond the scope of OEF.
Besides, terrorist attacks like the September 11 crashes do not depend on the possession of massive, open-air training facilities. Even warehouses and small ad hoc sites will suit just fine. Al-Qaeda might not be dependent on state support for their anti-U.S. operations. While some states may become more careful about directly or indirectly supporting terror attacks on U.S. assets, terrorist organizations themselves may become more motivated to conduct them. The recent Bali bombings, Moscow hostage takeover, fatal shooting of a U.S. Marine in Kuwait, assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan and the attempt to sink a French oil tanker off Yemen have proved that the terrorists are very much alive and kicking.
At any rate, the proposition that transnational terrorist organizations need states in order to survive and prosper is simply false. None of the terrorist capabilities demonstrated on September 11 require a large infrastructure and none require an intentionally cooperating state. Indeed, the September 11 terrorist cells were less dependent functionally on al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan than on aviation schools in Florida. Also, all the principal actors in the atrocities of September 11 had resided in Europe and received their training and indoctrination through the local cells of al-Qaeda. The plot to attack America was not hatched in any Muslim country, but on the continent where the West began.
Effective strategy to combat terrorism
Knocking off a branch won't kill the tree; we must get to the roots of the problem. Events since September 11 have proved that military action alone cannot beat terrorism. Effective action depends on a unique synergy of military and non-military measures: diplomatic, humanitarian, development, peace-building, and law-enforcement efforts. Since military action causes more devastation than emergence of conditions conducive to peace, it is extremely vital to understand the importance of synergy: non-military efforts serve to keep threat generation down to a level that military effort can manage without massive collateral damage. Military effort, in turn, should step in only as a last resort to guarantee the establishment of the conditions in which non-military effort might succeed.
When you fire a bullet at a checkpoint you can kill only one. When you fire your words at an international conference you might save a whole country. Terrorism cannot be defeated by military means. It's high time we start looking for alternatives.
About the Author: Ruhi Khan is a business student but started writing freelance thanks to the popular media that oft buries truth deep under layers of "diplomacy" and "selective focus." Her pen has strong faith in people's mobilization to create revolutions. When the time comes to pick sides, hopefully we won't do it on the basis of religion and blind patriotism but truth and justice.
More Information on Empire FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
