The True "War on Terror"

Only in the “Joe McCarthy” era and the WW II internment of Japanese Americans have we seen the type and level of hysteria and fear mongering currently wielded by the Bush Administration toward its detractors. Instead of the “communist sympathizer” label or presumed enemy status merely because of ethnicity, current targets are being labeled “terrorists.” Opponents of the President’s policies are labeled as sympathizers giving support to the enemies of freedom and democracy. They are accused of undermining national security and the “War on Terror.” The debate rages on whether this demonization process involves an extremely cynical manipulation of the public psyche, or an exhibition of gross incompetence and insensitivity borne of xenophobia and racist or religious intolerance. The result, in any event, is a serious derogation of the civil rights and freedoms upon which this country was allegedly founded. Further, the process and approach of the Bush Administration has undercut the credibility and moral authority that the United States used to hold in the international community. The risk of such recklessness is potential global war.

As noted by reputable historians, experienced military commanders and other expert observers, “terrorism” is a tactic and not an entity. Thus, a “war on terror[ism]” can neither be effectively fought nor won. The Bush Administration has succeeded in luring the country and the world into a military-backed “mission” to stamp out and “enemy” that cannot be clearly identified, contained or defeated. Yet thousands of lives and Billions of dollars have been expended in this fallacious venture. A “terrorist” is a criminal, like a murderer, bank robber, rapist or other malfeasant. As such, criminal justice organizations throughout the world have extensive experience in tracking and dealing with such criminals. The tragedy of the September 11 attack was not the emergence of Al Qaida as a “terrorist” organization, but rather the abject failure of the law enforcement authorities in the US to communicate with each other and the failure of the Bush Administration to place appropriate priority upon clear warnings that were provided. While no crime is completely preventable, subsequent reports indicate that the September 11 attack could have been diverted, deflected, prevented or reduced in scale if the law enforcement authorities and the White House had done their jobs more competently. Instead of owning up to these failures, the Bush Administration sought to deflect criticism by creating an illusory monster to which the public, in its vulnerable state of grief, could attach their anger and fears. Thus was born “the War on Terror.” But are we are own worst enemy?

We are repeatedly admonished that this is a “different and more dangerous world” we live in after the 9/11 attack. The Bush Administration even contends, on advice from its chief legal officer Gonzalez, that the Geneva Convention is “quaint” or “obsolete” and not binding upon the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror.” By any objective measure, the primary reason that the world may be more dangerous is the continued bellicose, threatening and arrogant rhetoric and actions of the Bush administration, and its proxies, that serve to inflame sensitive political situations and provide fertile recruiting opportunities for extremist groups. This goes directly to the debate of whether the Bush Administration is deliberately manipulating the situation for political purposes.

General Odom in addition to noting that terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, pointed out that the Bush tactic of rounding up all military age males in Iraq immediately after the invasion not only failed to put an end to the insurgency, but resulted in a serious and durable hostility toward the US military presence. While 90% of those rounded up were ultimately released because they had neither intelligence value nor connection to the insurgency, after imprisonment in harsh and crowded conditions including some proven acts of torture, this brutal and unfair treatment bred in many of these men a motivation to join forces with those factions opposing US military presence. The Bush Administration, deliberately or ineptly, succeeded in fostering the violent “terrorist” movement that it claimed to be fighting. The numerous incidents involving US military misconduct and violation of internationally accepted rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners that have come to light publicly, including the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture, the Fallujah massacre and use of white phosphorous on civilians, the Hadditha rape torture and killing of civilians and other examples have fueled a recruitment of resistance fighters whose enmity toward the US cannot be dismissed merely as jihadi zealotry. In fairness, they have reason to hate and oppose the US military presence.

The term “terrorist” has now become both a talisman and a sham. The same is true of the distortion of the concept of “self defense.” Looking across the political landscape today, we see example of how the irresponsible bandying of “terrorist” and “national security” by the Bush Administration has enabled others to cloak their nefarious agendas in euphemistic rhetorical terms in a similar manner. Consider the public statements of commanders of the Mahdi Army who acknowledge the capture and summary execution of persons “suspected” of being “Saddamists” or Sunni Muslims who oppose the authority of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr:

Asked about the Mahdi Army's role in the surge of killings immediately after the Samarra mosque bombing, the Mahdi Army commander in short sleeves at the restaurant frowned, and answered carefully. "Terrorists" were at work then, he said, using a term employed by Shiites for Sunni insurgents. "There was an immediate need to move and contain these groups," he said.
"This is part of defending yourself," the commander said. "This is a ready-made verdict -- we don't need any verdict."
You can find in any religion the right of self-defense," said another commander, senior enough to be referred to as the Sheik, who was interviewed separately by telephone.
“The takfiris, the ones who kill, they should be killed," said the Sheik, using a term commonly employed by Shiites for violent Sunni extremists. "Also the Saddamists, whose hands are stained with blood, they are sentenced to death."

[excerpts from Washington Post article -8/25/06]

The nearly complete destruction of the infrastructure of southern Lebanon, the attacks on UN observation posts, the bombing of schools, hospitals and ambulances and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians in the latest Israeli Defense Forces assault purportedly upon Hezbollah in retaliation for the capture of two Israeli soldiers is another example of rhetoric used as political cover for a sub rosa agenda. The entire international community, save the Bush Administration, condemned the disproportionate response and the indiscriminate killings. They refused to accept the Israeli characterization of the response as “self defense” in response to a “terrorist” organizations attack on Israel. Logic tells us that Israeli commandos could have engaged Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and attempted to free the Israeli soldiers, without the mass destruction and indiscriminate loss of life and displacement resulting from the massive assault. The Israeli action could be more appropriately viewed as an attempt to punish the people of southern Lebanon for sheltering Hezbollah than actually engaging Hezbollah fighters. But such action – “collective punishment” – would be prohibited by international law. So the “self defense” and “terrorist” talismans were trotted out as public spin to explain the IDF actions.

The Bush Administration cannot be held directly accountable for the actions of the Mahdi Army or the Israeli Defense Force, of course. [We set aside, for the moment, the US munitions sales and expedited delivery of the “smart” bombs used by Israel in its assault on Lebanon.] But the reckless and ill conceived policies of the Bush Administration have arguably provided political “cover” for such extremist actions that are actually grounded in vendetta and longstanding ethnic and religious feuds. And nothing said here seeks to condone Sunni attacks on Shiites or the Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israeli civilians. The US refuses to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq has devolved into a civil war. The mutual destruction feud between Israel and Hezbollah must be disengaged and resolved through peaceful and political means, because military “solutions” have failed despite decades of hostilities. The issue is the manner in which the reckless foreign policy of the Bush Administration, by example and by proxy, has given license to various factions to disregard internationally accepted standards of engagement and conduct. The current course of “Cowboy Diplomacy” does not lead to any apparent peaceful resolution, but rather to an ever downward spiral of violence and retaliation.

The incessant fear mongering and divisive rhetoric employed by the Bush Administration gives alarming new life and vitality to the phrase: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Only when we discard the deception, smoke and obfuscation of these rhetorical gimmicks will the world be able to effectively face the true underlying problems and address the deeper and very real concerns of the people in these trouble spots of the world. Continued deceit and delusion, in lieu of rational foreign policy, is likely to lead to widespread global conflict, which is the only true “terror” that we should be concerned about.