Will a war against Iraq reduce terrorism

March 08, 2003

Will a war against Iraq reduce terrorism - or increase it?

As the US marches inexorably to war with Iraq, it brings into relief more precisely than before the "new world" that we have inherited since the fall of the USSR and before the rise of China. It is a world with just one superpower, a superpower that is powerful enough to go to war without the approval of the UN, supposedly the body created to end all world wars.

The US is a country that "knows better" than the United Nations of the world, and better than the 116 non-aligned nations that met in Kuala Lumpur last month and announced their opposition to war.

It is a US power elite that "knows better" than the millions of people world-wide that voiced their opinions in street marches and gatherings last month.

Make no mistake about it.

This is a war that is far more than "protecting America". It is that but more.

We can hardly take away the US "right" to protect itself, and easy to see the negatives of Iraq's present administration, but the stakes are high - the chance that this may herald the beginning of a world conflict against the just as doubtful chance that it will dissuade terrorism is a risk that many see as dangerous.

US President Bush tells us that the World Trade Center bombing changed for ever US security concerns and strategy. And goes on to make a case for a tenuous relationship between Iraqi political leadership and international terrorism. He calls for a "regime" change - in other words the right of one country to change the leadership of another. Diplomacy has failed, he says. So has sanctions. Weapons of mass destruction are poised to be sold to international terrorists or used against neighbouring Arab states or much further afield.

America is suddenly insecure, and paradoxically enough, as it is at its peak of world dominance, economically, militarily, culturally and technologically. The fact that it's soul could be blasted by a ragbag collection of world "counter culturalists" who turned America's strengths against itself both in their choice of weapons, modus operandi, and targets came as a massive shock.

It is interesting to note for example the world view behind an article published in Esquire this month on views from the Pentagon. Authored by Thomas P.M Barnett from the US Naval War College, a professor of "Warfare Analysis" who briefs the US Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community, it analyzes what the author calls "Disconnectedness".

For example, in arguing why "..military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.", the author writes "...Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence..."

"...Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point - the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization..."

Hardly comfortable stuff to many countries. There is little talk here about terrorism, but a lot about how America must rule the world.

The knee-jerk reaction after a shock wears off is to retaliate in kind. To prove that the US is still the biggest and best. In some ways this is being achieved. It took a long time to bring in a senior al Qua-eda leader, and signs this Friday are that Osama bin Laden has only a few days of relative freedom left - at least in this world. There are good signs that an international effort to break the back of the international terrorist network is paying off, a sound start to what should be a long protracted effort to reducing the capabilities of those who use terror to further their poorly subscribed-to political philosophies (and make no mistake these ARE political, not religious philosophies.)

The fight against terrorism, with an organization structure more de-centralized and therefore less target-able than many think, will be long term and involves co-operation rather than threats.

There is as much evidence that a war against Iraq will reduce terrorism than it will increase it.

To suggest that an American war against Iraq furthers the war against terrorism may seem initially attractive, but it's not logically watertight. America is now reduced not only to diplomacy, but to crass money politics as it attempts to sway the undecided members of the UN Security Council, most of whom have US trade agreements or aid at stake. Bush's emotive statement that "You are either with us or against us" now seems more of a threat than an invitation.

In an Indonesia where the long arm of government policy has little influence or credibility in hundreds of provincial towns and dark jungles, new recruits to the anti-American and by default the anti-current-world-order cause are lining up in extremist organizations. In the center of an increasingly fractured and divided Arab world networks of terror remain healthy. In many Western and Asian countries world-wide, America is becoming, well, on-the-nose.

World wide, people are beginning to ask whether America will be fighting for us, or whether we will be fighting for them. So far, the US has done a poor job of convincing many that it is the former.

The war arena is far from the US. The terror experienced by Americans on their home front on 9/11 was tragic, even more so that it was so unexpected and brought to our TV screens worldwide in lurid detail. We feel deeply sorry and feel the pain of Americans as we viewed it from other countries, especially for a country that has opened it's doors to the world and welcomed many nationalities as citizens. But sitting in South East Asia for example, we also know the pain from many more years of international terrorism in our own countries. Thousands slaughtered in Indonesia for example in the name of militant religion over several decades. Hundreds of smaller but far more concerted "hits" in the name of the same cause world wide. The face of pain in South East Asia is far less publicized, as our people are poorer and the media does not tend to have cameras available in our poorer provinces. Yet the pain for every soul lost is the same as each lost in developed countries.

There is no doubt that a war in Iraq will cause economic problems in the Middle East and South East Asia. Maybe massive dislocation in the geopolitics of the Middle East and South East Asia will be worth the subsequent peace that such a war is touted to provide. But there is very little strong evidence that that will be the case - and the prospect of a stronger US influence in the region is not universally welcomed.

To return to the Barnett ( U.S. Naval War College) analysis, the co-operation of "seam" states in the US war effort is crucial...

...Problem areas requiring American attention are, in the author's analysis, called the Gap. Shrinking the Gap is possible only by stopping the ability of terrorist networks to access the Core via the "seam states" that lie along the Gap's bloody boundaries. In this war on terrorism, the U.S. will place a special emphasis on cooperation with these states. What are the classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia...

Bush's tilts against the UN, accusing it of irrelevance and losing credibility, as well as statements that continue to emphasize that the US will go it alone in Iraq if necessary, does little to convince many that this war is more about terrorism and protecting the world than it is about increasing US power and influence by force of arms. The US-led war against Iraq may well be about terrorism and liberation, but the months ahead will increasingly reveal it's real purpose - to extend US influence worldwide, now that it is obvious in the new inter-connected global world, that no country is really an island.

Chao Phraya River Rat in Politics and Government on March 08, 2003 03:55 AM

Sponsor APMF Member

Comments

Going to war and ousting Saddam Hussein has both pros and cons. The cons are that many people will die. There will be a higher level of hatred for America for a while - perhaps a long while by those who would wish it harm.

But let us not be fooled. Hussein has not changed. HE HAS REFUSED to account for thousands upon thousands of containers of biological weapons. He has neither provided evidence of their destruction or otherwise accounted for them. That is unacceptable. He is not complying with the mandates. Plain and simple. Only the collosally stupid would be lulled into thinking otherwise.

So, we are left with an unpallatable choice. Do we continue the same hide and seek game with inspectors which has failed to turn up anything signficant. Or do we handle the problem? - which clearly will cost lives.

There are few people who would disagree that if Saddam Hussein had the opportunity to provide willing terrorists with supplies of biological weapons to cause death and destruction in the United States, he would certainly do it.

One small vile of many types of biological weapons could kill thousands of people. ....And, it certainly is easier to smuggle in a small vial in luggage than it is to fly airplanes into buildings.

So, I support removing Saddam Hussein from power and re-establishing Iraq as a prominent and positive country in the middle east -- as well as removing the access to weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. The risks are great but the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein to his own preferences is far worse.

As an American I regret that there is not international support and I understand why people protest against war, at the gut level. War should always be the last option. But there are evil people in the world and, unfortunately, the only way to deal with them is to deal with them militarily because they have no respect for honor, truth or life.

As a footnote, is there anyone who feels Afghanistan is worse off because America attacked that government and changed the regime? Is there anyone who feels that was not justified?

Finally, this talk of American dominancy and colonializm is nonsense. There are very few countries in this world the United States has not helped in significant ways to improve the lives of people around the world. In our history we have gone to war with dictators and removed them and even occupied foreign lands but then only to rebuild them and foster new free countries.

So, for those of you who think that we deserve the negative terms and names you feel obliged to whirl, fine, at least you have the right to speak freely and it just may be that the cost in American blood at some point in the past made that possible.

Bruce Krider
San Diego, California

Posted by: Bruce Krider on March 8, 2003 10:16 PM

Bruce, many thanks for stopping by and leaving your comments. They are highly valued and appreciated.

I sympathize with you on the "name-calling" that has gone on recently against America. I also note that while millions have gone out on the streets worldwide to voice their opposition to invading Iraq there has been a curious lack of attention to positive alternatives. The grassroots have been as good at being "anti", as they have been as poor in contributing positively to the debate.

In order to not be tarred by my own brush, I suggest another alternative to war. Leaving inspectors indefinitely in Iraq, overseen by the UN as now, to me is a tiny cost compared to the cost of war and its implications. After all, North Korea is surely next on the list, who turfed out their own IAEA inspectors only a month of so again. And even blind Freddy (though not obviously US President Bush given his comments of yesterday), can see that Iraq IS disarming, albeit under pressure and slowly.

On the other hand I am less sympathetic to your appeals relating to "American blood". The US has not been the only nation to spill blood in the name of freedom, as the two World Wars will attest, and many countries have also come to the USs aid when the interests of both seemed to each to be served. That being said the US has also drawn other nations into conflicts that are now often retrospectively seen as "mistakes", Vietnam of course being the most obvious. That is no way, of course, to degrade the massive contribution the US has made to freedom worldwide.

However, at this stage I do wonder whether the US is on the road to making another mistake. I don't think that is being too sensationalist to believe that the seeds of a World War 3 are being sown, given the polarizing opinion, especially among the developing and developed world, and the Islam and Western world.

The UN is there for one reason in the end. It was established to prevent World War Three, and after almost 60 years of relative peace, following 2 major conflagrations in the first half of the last millennium, some may say it is succeeding. After all, are not the best brains in a couple of hundred nations better than those from one alone, even given the latter is possibly the most technologically and powerful?

The US continually changes their justification for this war, from part of the war against terrorism, to disarming nations of Weapons of Mass Destruction, to liberating the people of Iraq. Which makes me think that the real agenda has not been addressed. A real agenda far more important than Bush avenging Saddams attempts to "kill his Dad".

Let's not forget that the Weapons of Mass Destruction that caused havoc on the World Trade Centre were not missiles, chemicals, or nuclear warheads, but flying missiles built by an American company on its own soil. On that day, America's technology was turned on itself. Its strength, became its weakness, and not only evidenced by the "weapon" alone.

Posted by: Chao Phraya River Rat on March 9, 2003 09:19 AM

Mao was right. And so is Bush.

Power comes from the end of a gun.

Diplomacy is an admittance of failure.

Wake up everybody.

Posted by: J Dalton on March 9, 2003 09:45 AM

I think America is justified in taking this action. Anyone who wants America to wait until the enemy strikes is mischivious. Now is the time. Tomorrow might be too late

Posted by: Moore Mukatar on March 11, 2003 05:37 PM

The world is clearly hanging on a dangerous balance. Iam surprised that people dont seem to see the danger posed by this monster: Sadam Hussein. Every nation of the world must understand that failure to deal decisively with this criminal would have grave consequences for the human race. For me, Iraq is an issue that should quickly be put behind us so that N Korea can be flushed out in time. France is behaving like a drunkard fed with the wine of Hussein- perhaps he wants to appear relevant. Et tu Germany and Rusia.

The world must stand firm behind America to avoid a major global catastrophe arising from lack of will to flush out Sadam-the evil one

Posted by: Neville Dafe on March 11, 2003 05:46 PM

Why should Everybody stand behind America when it is partly america's fault that there are biological toxins in Iraq? It was the US who sold anthraz agents to Saddam in the 1st place along with the British who approved chemical and munitions factories. This major global castatrophe could have been averted 20 years ago if the govenrment than hadn't given Saddam access to those chemicals. I don't believe a war should be justified intil all the facts behind the biological toxins and the other weapons are understood

Posted by: on April 15, 2003 06:41 AM

i feel as if they care too much about stuff like this when they should'nt be and just think about our security against terrorists

Posted by: Elise Donnely on August 29, 2003 11:28 AM

where is the justifications to wage war on Iraq? where is the WMD? what happen to the Iraqi wealth (black gold).

Now that Saddam regime is over, whos gonna be next? its sad to see ppl die everyday consequent to the leaders lips.

Posted by: trex on January 29, 2004 08:09 PM

Nihil declaro - I have nothing to declare

Posted by: free adult web cams on July 9, 2004 06:34 AM

Frangar non flectar - I am broken, I am not deflected

Posted by: the rape of the lock on July 9, 2004 09:52 AM

Ars sine scienta nihil est - Art without science is nothing (I would also claim that the opposite is true.)

Posted by: interracial rape on July 9, 2004 10:13 AM

Mea culpa - My fault

Posted by: drunk chick on July 9, 2004 12:46 PM

Acta est fabula, plaudite! - The play is over, applaud! (Said to have been emperor Augustus' last words.)

Posted by: gay websites on July 9, 2004 01:13 PM

Non omne quod licet honestum est - Not everything that is permitted is honest. (Corpus Iuris Civilis)

Posted by: old fat women on July 10, 2004 02:12 PM

Cum tacent, clamant - When they are silent, they cry out. (Their silence speaks louder than words.) (Cicero)

Posted by: lip plumper on July 10, 2004 08:44 PM

Qui tacet, consentit - Silence gives consent

Posted by: russian incest on July 11, 2004 01:34 AM

Ars sine scienta nihil est - Art without science is nothing (I would also claim that the opposite is true.)

Posted by: drunk girl pictures on July 11, 2004 04:11 AM

Sequens mirabitur aetas - The following age will be amazed

Posted by: nylon stocking galleries on July 11, 2004 05:30 AM

Est queadam fiere voluptas - There is a certain pleasure in weeping. (Ovid)

Posted by: incest tgp on July 11, 2004 06:22 AM

Ubicumque homo est, ibi benefici locus est - Wherever there is a man, there is a place of/for kindness/service

Posted by: nude lesbian on July 11, 2004 06:25 AM

Si tacuisses, philosophus manisses - If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher. (Boethius)

Posted by: inuyasha hentai on July 11, 2004 03:48 PM

Fama volat - The rumour has wings. (Vergil)

Posted by: age 18 18 little girl incest on July 11, 2004 05:13 PM

Semper fi, Semper fidelis

Posted by: older mature women on July 11, 2004 10:05 PM

Vagans - Cruising

Posted by: piss sex on July 12, 2004 07:25 AM

Rident stolidi verba Latina - Fools laugh at the Latin language. (Ovid)

Posted by: gallery older plumpers on July 12, 2004 07:48 AM

Praetio prudentia praestat - Prudence supplies a reward

Posted by: bestiality forum on July 12, 2004 08:06 AM

Ab imo pectore - From the bottom of the chest (from the heart)

Posted by: women wear pantyhose on July 12, 2004 03:31 PM

Posted by: poker on October 1, 2004 08:41 PM

Posted by: for that on October 17, 2004 07:29 AM

There is no great genius without some touch of madness.

Posted by: penis enlargement on October 21, 2004 10:13 AM