The Dawn, Pakistan
September 09, 2006
Who's winning the war on terror?
By Irfan Husain
IN a war between nations, victory and defeat are measured in territory won and lost, soldiers killed, and tanks, ships and aircraft destroyed. But in a battle against an idea, success is counted in terms of hearts and minds.
Using this measure, who's winning the "war on terror"? Five years have passed since 9/11, and the conflict rages on. Indeed, this struggle has already lasted longer than the First World War (1914-18), and will soon equal the Second World War (1939-45) in terms of time, if not in lives lost. Just as my generation lived under the shadow of the Cold War, I fear my son's will have to live with the consequences of 9/11. If the rivalry between Moscow and Washington defined the second half of the last century, the conflict between the West and militant Islam is the ideological battle of our times.
While America and its allies have inflicted considerable damage on Al Qaeda's infrastructure, they have also succeeded in recruiting many young Muslims to its cause. In a recent TV programme in the UK called 'Is it time to talk to Al Qaeda?', the presenter came to the conclusion that given the occupation of Iraq, the "war on terror" could not be won, and hence negotiations with Bin Laden should be opened. He based this startling thesis on his conversations with young Muslims in the West as well as in parts of the Islamic world over one year. He found that the war in Iraq had radicalised large numbers of young Muslims, and it was not possible to track them all down.
In fact, the invasion of Iraq has been the single biggest mistake the West has made in its war against Al Qaeda and its offshoots. By concentrating its forces in a secular country that was utterly inhospitable to fundamentalism, the coalition has allowed the Taliban to stage a remarkable recovery in Afghanistan. More to the point, by waging a clearly illegal and unjustified war against Iraq, Bush has wantonly forfeited the wave of sympathy America was riding on when the Taliban were toppled in the wake of 9/11. He has also made Iraq a magnet for young jihadis from all over the world. From here, the survivors will return to their countries as battle-hardened veterans.
Within America, Bush has squandered much political capital by dragging his country into a war that cannot be won. As American casualties mount, the ruling Republicans face the probability of losing their majority in Congress in the November elections. And at a time of mounting anxiety about the economy, for the Pentagon to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars in an open-ended conflict is increasingly seen as pointless by many American voters.
It should be clear to the meanest intelligence that when fighting an amorphous threat like the one coming from Islamic extremists, force alone is not enough. There needs to be an ideological engagement to challenge the appeal people like Bin Laden have for many Muslims. Thus far, we only have Bush's famous challenge: "Bring 'em on!" And while western scholars and journalists have explained the attraction of extremism and traced the rise of political Islam, they have not articulated a counterpoint to the fundamentalist agenda.
The other conflict that resonates powerfully in the Muslim psyche is the Palestinian struggle for freedom and statehood. The abject misery in the West Bank and Gaza is caused by the Israeli occupation and the open-ended support Israel gets from Washington for its repressive policies. Each time an American-manufactured bomb dropped from an American aircraft killed Lebanese civilians last month, the Muslim world blamed Bush as much it blamed the Israelis.
So when English friends ask me why young Muslims in Britain are so angry, I suggest they look at what policies their government is supporting in Iraq and in Palestine. Another fallout from this ongoing war is the loss of personal liberties through various anti-terrorism laws passed in most western countries. Indeed, the erosion of democratic values and traditions has been a major casualty in this shadowy war. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are permanent stains on America's human rights record. Phone-tapping and hacking into personal emails are now part of the armoury of all western intelligence agencies. And while these infringements seem a small price to pay for security, they represent a step backwards in the march of personal liberty.
How goes the war for the enemy? Bin Laden and his cohorts have taken a fearful hammering, but they are still standing. Despite the loss of several key commanders, they have been able to sustain their operations, albeit at a less ambitious level. But more importantly, their ideology and their message of hate have been planted in impressionable young minds around the world. In a sense, their brand of terror has become a loosely knit collection of franchise operations. Like the fearsome Hydra, as soon as one head is hacked off, another sprouts to take its place.
It is this field of dragon's teeth that brings forth warriors that is the most dangerous aspect of this conflict. Here is an ideology that is removed from territory and individuals. Killing people and capturing land is therefore not going to end the conflict. Against communism, the West had a countervailing ideology in the form of individual freedom and economic liberalism. But against an extreme, literal interpretation of Islam, the West has no answer. While urging moderate Muslims to take the fight to the firebrands, western politicians feel they have no role except to wring their hands and rail against extremism.
But clearly, they are failing in their duties: instead of reviewing the policies that inflame the violence, they insist they will not be blackmailed into changing their stance on issues like Iraq and Palestine. In short, they insist there is no connection between their policies and the extremist response. This is to deny the principle of cause and effect. But as long as they continue to be in denial, this war will drag on.
Meanwhile, the collateral damage multiplies in terms of anger and bitterness on both sides. Moderates in the western and Muslim worlds are being radicalised. Neutrality is no longer an option. So five years on, we can only conclude that the forces of Islamic extremism are winning. For the West, this is a war that cannot be won.