- Inti Martínez--4/2/2006
For the past three years, the world has learned about an ongoing war pitting US and its allies against “the terrorists”. This war was ignited in response to the 9/11 attacks; it started off by legitimately attacking Afghanistan’s Taliban regime for supporting Islamic fundamentalist Al-Qaeda, which is led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The war later spread to Iraq for three main reasons: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and needed to disarm, Saddam had links with terrorist organizations that threatened world peace (i.e., al-Qaeda), and Saddam carried out human rights violations and needed to stop.
The White House has officially labeled this the “War on Terror.” Other names like “War on Terrorism,” “Global War on Terror” and “the Long War” are also used to label the US-led plan to eradicate international terrorism by dismembering terrorist groups and stopping state-sponsored terrorism. All this sounds praiseworthy to me. But, what exactly is terrorism? This word is defined in countless ways—even among US governmental entities and documents like the National Security Strategy (2002 and 2006), National Counterterrorism Center, Pentagon, USA Patriot Act (2001 and 2006), and United States Code—and it is sometimes very difficult to differentiate terrorism from aggression, retaliation, and legitimate resistance. For practical purposes, I will craft and implement a definition that covers nearly all of the official definitions for this term: “Terrorism is the calculated use of violent acts by individuals, groups or state actors to intimidate, coerce, or influence a civilian population or established government on political, religious, or ideological grounds.”
If we use this definition of “terrorism” consistently throughout several cases—regardless of the perpetrators—we find that the 9/11 attacks, the 2004 and 2005 bombings in Madrid and London (respectively), the ongoing attacks between Palestine and Israel in the Holy Land, Shining Path’s bombings in Perú, the US-led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941, were all acts of terrorism. These attacks may or may not have occurred under an official war, but the definition of terrorism covers them all. The US government has officially stated that it carries out counterterrorism and low-intensity warfare—but, if you compare their definitions to that of “terrorism,” they are impressively similar.
Furthermore, the “War on Terror” is not a new thing under US policy; it is a recycled term from Ronald Reagan’s administration. (Many of the members of President Bush’s cabinet, speech writing staff and advisory group were once members of the Reagan administration.) The “War on Terror” was declared early in Reagan’s first presidential term, and directed to a particularly dangerous form of terror: state-sponsored international terrorism. The main focus was Central America and the Middle East, but it reached southern Africa and Southeast Asia. Then-President Reagan declared several national emergencies, because the dangerous country of Nicaragua posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States of America, and was only two days away from marching into Texas and attacking the USA.
An interesting fact that you may or may not know is that in 1986 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) condemned the US for its “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua—which, in lay terms, amounts to international terrorism—and demanded massive reparations. This judgment was backed by virtually unanimous UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. Reparations were not made, but military escalation against Nicaragua was put into effect. The US was spared from being condemned for “aggression” (which is what really happened, and military manuals consider it worse than “terrorism”) because, in 1946, the US accepted to be under ICJ jurisdiction on the condition that it would be exempted from being condemned for “aggression.”
Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, the US government directly and indirectly supported murderous coup d’états, oppressive regimes, and unscrupulous dictators in
Indonesia, the Philippines, Romania, Zaire, Haiti, Argentina, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on and on and on. The US government also harbors terrorists—who were once backed by the US military and on the CIA payroll—at home (e.g., Emmanuel Constant, Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles—just to name a few). The US terrorist record is extensive and appalling.
So, if a leftist terrorist cell or a state government with a terrorist record or al-Qaeda decided to fight a war against terror, in an entirely consistent fashion, wouldn’t that be self-destructive? Wouldn't these harmful individuals, cells and governments be attacking themselves?
Moreover, even if every single one of present-day terrorists is killed, captured and tried in court, or sent to an obscure prison somewhere in the world, many more terrorists would rise up out of anger for these killings or captures—and to defend their ideology, religion, and/or people-group. Take the example of Iraq; right before the 2003 invasion, there were practically no terrorist or violent attacks happening in the country. The atrocious levels of violence in today’s near-to-civil-war Iraq originated from neighboring terrorists coming into the country and blowing up buildings, sniping at Coalition troops, foreign contractors, security officers, etc.—and influencing Iraqi citizens to do the same. So, the scant amount of terrorist attacks in Iraq before the 2003 invasion eventually turned into insurmountable violence, making Iraq the quagmire that it is today (2,500+ Coalition troops killed and 37,000 Iraqi deaths—not to mention thousands of them wounded and disabled for life). The interesting thing is that these terrorist attacks make most people outside of Iraq (i.e., the West) think that this “war” is justified and necessary in order to fight and eliminate “the terrorists.” Without a clear target and an effective strategy to fight “the terrorists,” this “War on Terror” will not be over for a while.
There are three direct ways in which the US and its allies can reduce terrorism in this world. First, they should stop inciting it. Terrorist cells like al-Qaeda thrive whenever Muslims are killed and when there is turmoil caused by foreign forces in Muslim territory. Second, they should stop participating in and funding terrorism. Remember that the CIA supported al-Qaeda through the 1980s as they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. Colombia receives, by far, the largest amount of military aid from the US in this hemisphere and it’s where the largest amount of human rights violations and terrorist attacks in the Western hemisphere occur (the correlation between US military aid and human rights violations in the world is surprisingly strong). Over 200,000 lives would have been spared in Central America if the US government wouldn’t have funded and trained military and paramilitary groups to fight “the commies” from the 1950s to the 1990s. These groups organized themselves as death squads, and up to this day there are thousands of people “missing.” Third, the US and its allies should be more efficient in using their military intelligence to find and capture terrorists. It is aggravating and frustrating to see Coalition troops being killed by insurgents in Iraq, but attacking back with disregard for civilian lives is intolerable. If there is an actual threat, a target, it should be systematically dismembered without hurting civilians and carrying out shameful acts of human degradation like those in Abu Ghraib.
I am a staunch supporter of reducing terrorism in the world to near-inexistent levels (“terrorism” can’t be completely eliminated), but calling it the “War on Terror” is inappropriate, since it is applying double standards, it is hypocritical and counterproductive. Next time you read or hear such a term…chuckle.