Making More Terrorists in Iraq
Tuesday afternoon, Bush bowed to pressure and declassified 3 pages of the 30 page National Intelligence Estimate. As repeated in newspapers everywhere, the report dated April 2006 asserts that the Iraq war has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, "breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." It is this last claim that has been picked up by the media and emphasized by Bush's Democratic critics. In fact, despite rather desperate claims to the contrary by the Administration, it's become almost a truism -- even repeated by Musharraf in his trip to the Daily Show -- that the war in Iraq is increasing the likelihood of a terrorist attack here in the US and is strengthening Islamic extremism everywhere. Coming in the middle of an election, the clear implication is that, while "tough on terrorism" is good, Bush's particular brand of toughness is actually heightening the threat.
Yet, although it may count as common sense, for a number of reasons the oft-repeated argument that Iraq is creating new terrorists poised to attack America is neither self-evident nor good political argument. First, it once again hypes the danger posed by terrorism -- transforming what should at most be one security concern among others into the primary focus of politics. Even if Al Qaeda recruiting is up because of the war, for which scant direct evidence is provided, there is no evidence that they have increased capacity to endanger American lives and institutions. Indeed, the absence of terrorist attacks in the US over the past five years points in the opposite direction. No matter what Bush or Cheney say, civilization is not at stake. Moreover, to the extent that the war has led a few alienated Muslims to lash out at the West, it's telling that such attacks have taken place in Europe. As compared with the US, European immigrant communities -- including Muslim communities -- are far less integrated into social and political life. If anything, as some have argued, social conditions at 'home' (in the West) have more to do with the few, disorganized terrorist acts here than does the Iraq war.
But regardless of whether we're creating more terrorists or not, by viewing the success or failure of Iraq through the prism of terrorism we end up displacing what should be the central concern. The war in Iraq should be opposed because it makes a mockery of the principle of self-rule and has produced a horrendous and disruptive degree of violence. The result is a tragedy -- one sustained by the terrorism discourse and which must end whether or not a boomerang effect exists.
Yet, although it may count as common sense, for a number of reasons the oft-repeated argument that Iraq is creating new terrorists poised to attack America is neither self-evident nor good political argument. First, it once again hypes the danger posed by terrorism -- transforming what should at most be one security concern among others into the primary focus of politics. Even if Al Qaeda recruiting is up because of the war, for which scant direct evidence is provided, there is no evidence that they have increased capacity to endanger American lives and institutions. Indeed, the absence of terrorist attacks in the US over the past five years points in the opposite direction. No matter what Bush or Cheney say, civilization is not at stake. Moreover, to the extent that the war has led a few alienated Muslims to lash out at the West, it's telling that such attacks have taken place in Europe. As compared with the US, European immigrant communities -- including Muslim communities -- are far less integrated into social and political life. If anything, as some have argued, social conditions at 'home' (in the West) have more to do with the few, disorganized terrorist acts here than does the Iraq war.
But regardless of whether we're creating more terrorists or not, by viewing the success or failure of Iraq through the prism of terrorism we end up displacing what should be the central concern. The war in Iraq should be opposed because it makes a mockery of the principle of self-rule and has produced a horrendous and disruptive degree of violence. The result is a tragedy -- one sustained by the terrorism discourse and which must end whether or not a boomerang effect exists.
2 Comments:
I understand that you are formulating a sustained critique of the language (and policy) of the 'war on terror.' And I did oppose the war in Iraq on independent grounds. However, I wonder if using WOT rhetoric as leverage against poor policy-making in Iraq may remain acceptable. Given that a paradigm shift (never mind a policy shift)may be long in coming, and given the immense costs right now, might it make sense to use the discursive tools we have at hand to effect change as quickly as possible? I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I do think it's a more difficult decision than you suggest. And perhaps this is less a concern for me because, although the 'war on terrorism' as a concept is entirely imprecise, unhelpful, and unhelpfully fear-mongering, it does seem plausible that the Iraq war is making the world less secure in some ways.
(And, separately, I think you make a very good point about the importance of integrating immigrant communities into social life at 'home.')
This is a great editorial of about the War on Terror in the WSJ by George Soros. This will have a big impact on thinking people who do not fall for the usual neocon garbage that the editors of the WSJ feed them. I am also looking forward to reading his latest book.
A Self-Defeating War by George Soros
The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British intelligence.
Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.
What makes the war on terror self-defeating?
First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.
Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.
Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.
Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.
Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.
With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.
If you want to put more on this in your blog read the details on his website about war on terror
Post a Comment
<< Home