| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Is the War on Terrorism being won?
Though there have been military victories in the WOT in the traditional sense, these have been more than offset by political and strategic losses. The political losses are apparent in that the WOT so far has disenfranchised not just the Islamic world but also significant numbers in Europe, Asia and even the Americas. Negative views of the US among Muslims, which had been largely limited to the Middle East, have now spread to Indonesia and Nigeria. In May 2003 the respected Pew research organisation carried out independent opinion poll research interviewing some 16,000 people in 20 countries . Favourable ratings for the US have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria since the preceding summer. Disapproval of President Bush's international policies continues to erode America's image even amongst its allies. US favourability ratings have plummeted in France, Germany and Russia. In Britain, favourable views of the US have declined from 75% to 48% since mid-2002. In Italy, favourable views of the US declined by half in the same period (from 70% to 34%) and in Spain, fewer than one-in-five (14%) have a favourable opinion of the US.
The US administration claim that they and their allies are winning the WOT. This may be true in a narrow military sense, but as well as political losses amongst the public and key allies, strategic losses have also been ignored. Maybe this is what President Bush was alluding to when in a frank admission on the eve of the Republican national convention when asked whether the WOT could be won, Bush said, “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”
Bush’s candour is a reflection of the private views of his inner circle. In a rare moment of self-doubt Donald Rumsfeld in a leaked memo last October asked his subordinates the following
“Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”
Some of these are good questions and no one fully knows the answers to them. Similarly, we do not know how many people have rejected American policies without necessarily resorting to violence. Rumsfeld’s statement was a telling acknowledgement that his administration lacks both measurable classified and unclassified data in the WOT - yet despite this omission the US administration continues to argue that it is winning the war. However if we believe the conclusions of the Pew survey and also accept that there is some sort of correlation between growing anti-US sentiment and the rejection of US policies, it can be argued that the US is certainly not winning the war of ideas in the Islamic world. Respected think tanks like the International Institute for Strategic Studies also believe that the war in Iraq for instance has probably “inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased Al Qaeda's recruiting power and morale and, at least marginally, its operating capability.”
This judgement is also backed by ex-CIA director George Tenet’s testimony to a Senate committee in February 2004 when he said, “Al Qaeda is not the limit of terrorist threat worldwide. Al Qaeda has infected others with its ideology, which depicts the United States as Islam's greatest foe. Mr. Chairman, what I want to say to you now may be the most important thing I tell you today. The steady growth of Usama bin Laden's anti-U.S. sentiment through the wider Sunni extremist movement and the broad dissemination of Al Qaeda's destructive expertise ensure that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future.” He then says, “Dozens of such groups exist.”
So in answer to the question of whether the WOT is being won, the statements of the US President, the US Secretary of Defense and the ex-director of the CIA speak for themselves.
Can the US reform the Islamic world?
A central tenet of US foreign policy is its aim to seek reform of the Middle East starting from Iraq. Before making some criticisms, it has to be acknowledged that in theory the strategy of the neoconservatives, who are a significant influence on the Bush administration, provides a clear and coherent analysis, even if one disagrees with it. Their analysis that the US has for too long chosen stability over democracy in the Arab world is obviously a fact. The endemic authoritarianism, corruption and economic stagnation of the Arab world has led to dissent and opposition being channelled through the mosques and underground political movements. This, the neo-conservatives believe, has led generations of Muslims to be brought up in repressed states, thus having to channel their frustrations through the mosques at America who they blame for being the external benefactor of their corrupt rulers. Denied of legitimate political means to enact change, they turn to violence bordering on the nihilistic. Consequently to drain the swamp of radicalism, the neo-conservatives believe that the US must ensure that democracy and freedom take firm root in the Arab world. Starting from an epicentre in Iraq, the neoconservatives believe that the winds of freedom would soon create instability for the mullahs in Iran (especially with a restless population yearning for change) as well as forcing Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf countries to also modernise their political systems. Once these countries were on board the democratic train, holdouts like Syria would either be isolated or if they made trouble, the US military could intervene. The neocons also cite the examples of Germany and Japan after WW2 to prove their case as well as the fall of the Soviet Union that they believe took place without a bullet even being fired. Joshua Micah Marshall writing in the Washington Monthly in April 2003 says this of the neocons plan, “The audacious nature of the neocons’ plan makes it easy to criticize, but strangely difficult to dismiss outright. Like a character in a bad made-for-TV thriller from the 1970’s, you can hear yourself saying “That plan’s just crazy enough to work” But like a TV plot, the hawk’s vision rests on a willing suspension if disbelief, in particular, on the premise that every close call will break in our favor: The guard will fall asleep next to the cell so our heroes can pluck the keys from his belt. The hail of enemy bullets will plink-plink-plink over our heroes’ heads. And the getaway car in the driveway will have the keys waiting in the ignition. Sure, the hawks’ vision could come to pass. But there are at least half a dozen equally plausible alternative scenarios that would be disastrous for us.”
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Page 3 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
