Muse – The Future of the War on Terror

Written for the Open Diary Political Forum

It has been 1000 days since the September 11th terrorist attacks. We have experienced two major military operations: the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. With the 2004 election looming ahead, the “War on Terror” may become a hot topic for the exchange of political venom, both concerning the results of this “war” so far and the future of this endeavor.

Is there any merit to continuing the War on Terror? If so, where and in what way should it be pursued? If not, how should the United States conduct foreign policy in the aftermath of the war?

As it stands now, no I don’t believe there is merit to this war on terror. Largely because the ‘war’ is a misnomer and it is being fought in the lest efficient of ways. Our past has been full of wars against countries and the like, but this is a war of ideas and ideals. If it’s fought like a conventional war, it will turn into a lengthy endeavor with no discernable end nor way to mark progress. Much like the war on drugs was and continues to be. There are successes and losses and in the end none of them really matter in the grand scheme because drugs remain a bane.

So too do I see this war on terror becoming a state of eternal warfare until one of two things happens. Someone stops it or every single fanatic Islamist is killed. The first is more likely than the latter as the viral ideals that these hardcore groups hold will continue to spread virally throughout the Middle East. Even if only a fraction of the region’s population gets on board, it’ll be more than enough to keep us busy year after year after year chasing them through country after country, cell after cell into infinity.

There are a lot of concepts that those for this war like to tout when it comes to supporting their views. One of the most amusing to me is the number of terrorists and their leaders who have been captured or killed. As if this somehow shows progress when, just as quickly as they’re captured or killed, they’re replaced. You think that alQueda is really hurting after the capture of X or Y guy? Doubtful as that guy has been replaced by a new leader. And all those foot solders that were killed a X date? They’re all replaced with fresh recruits. Perhaps even those who were convinced to fight against America by the latest foul up in our liberation of Iraq.

Another I hear a lot deals with giving ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy. Brought to you by the creators of other vague, blanket concepts such as ‘enemy combatant’. The term ‘aid and comfort’ can be extended to so many things, attempting to use it as a declaration of how wrong the acts of one’s ideological foes are is ludicrous. Any method, mode or level of speaking out against the government could be considered that. Why not toss the lot of is in jail since we’re being such traitors to America?

Ludicrous concepts like these are an obvious note of the inability for America, as it is now, to handle a real war of ideas. We’re too quick to turn guns on the problem rather than turning on our minds and opening up our eyes to first understand the true root of the problem and then fix it there, rather than trying to prune branches back even as the rest of the plant grows to stymie efforts. As it stands, the war on terror is a fight against the current, with lives and money expended each day toward an effort that could turn out futile.

And currently, at it’s center, is Iraq. The grand experiment. I’d wager the validity of our war on terror has been improperly balanced on this little country. If the experiment succeeds, the war on terror might well have an effect(though looking at recent attempts by the US to bring peace, I’m not betting the farm on that). If it fails, that’s a pretty big black eye for the US. And if it goes on and on and on, the US will be trapped, our military power committed in such a way that we couldn’t go on the offensive in a meaningful sense even if we wanted to.

Thus our big offensive is balanced on the head of a pin and the question of if we can replicate ourselves in the heart of ‘enemy territory’. Yet one need only look to Israel to see an example of what one might get when they put a state of vastly different values and government in the center of others. Perhaps Iraq wont’ get that bad, but assuming for a moment it works and we have a lovely US spawned democracy smack dab in the center of the Middle East, what will that do for us? If we’re too chummy with them, other Middle East countries will disdain them. If we’re not, who knows what they might do. And if they do something we don’t like, then what? Invade them again? Pressure them? Playing games with a US spawned democracy in the middle of a volatile region would certainly make for interesting, if dangerous foreign policy.

But that’s all assuming we actually succeed. Aside from the moral uncertainty of making them like us, do we even have the means to? It has become obvious that the Bush administration has only a minimum of the necessary knowledge to deal with the region. Rather than letting the world play out the inspection game for a while and starting to do some serious homework on the history of the Middle East, it’s culture, society and other such aspects that would be of the utmost importance, we rushed the game, charged in and took over in record time. Only to find we left our translation book at home.

To some credit, the Bush administration has been learning from mistakes made, but the fact that we rushed so quickly so as to make so many mistakes doesn’t bode well for the future. That we’ve made up on the spot plans, only to ditch them and make more plans, then to ditch them and make more plans shows how unprepared this administration was for this. The shifting reasoning for the attack puts the validity of their concern for Iraq in question. Anyone can say they did something for a certain reason and make it sound believable. But once someone has shown themselves to be untrustworthy, those words ring false on the ear, no matter the truth of intent behind them.

Considering all of this, I can’t have much confidence that we’ll have success in Iraq or in this war on terror. I don’t trust that Bush realizes what he’s committed us to. If he doesn’t get it, we’re set to waste loads of cash and lives on something that will ultimately be of uncertain effect on the future. To those who promote the Bush administration’s agenda, things seem so simple but they’re really quite complex and even the best of intentions can bring disaster if you don’t understand the effects of your actions. As I believe they don’t understand.

Under new management, with a new plan that takes into account the root causes of terrorism, the war on terror would be a much more attractive idea. War, just like jihad, has many meanings. Not all of them are bad and both generally refer to conflict and struggle. We do need to struggle against terror, but we need more of the mind involved and less of the gun. Until this is done, there is little hope for the war on terror. It might work, but the question is what is the likelihood, what will be the end effect and what will be the cost?

I don’t presume to know, as I don’t have the fullness of information to know. As is the same for all of us poor, poor citizens. But I feel that the future will be dark. And I don’t particularly like it.