ugnet_: BUSH AND TERRORISTS- They need each other

[Mulindwa Edward]

Bush And Terrorists - They Need Each Other By Brian Whitaker The Guardian - UK 9-12-3 LONDON -- Politicians have a habit of declaring war on all sorts of intangible enemies - war on crime, war on drugs, war on whatever. These are only wars in a manner of speaking and we donāt normally expect aircraft carriers to be dispatched and missiles readied in order to deal with them. Five days after the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on New York and Washington, President George Bush declared his intention to retaliate. "This crusade, this war on terrorism," he said, "is going to take a while". The word "crusade" proved an immediate own-goal, alarming Muslims with its historical allusion, and White House officials hastily back-tracked, making clear that "crusade" was only a figure of speech. But the "war" on terrorism was not a figure of speech. As the world soon discovered, George Bush meant it literally. From the very beginning, the war on terrorism was ill-conceived. Amid the trauma of Sept. 11, that was understandable and to some extent excusable, but the US has done little or nothing over the last two years to refine its concept and the objectives of the war are even more muddled today than they were in 2001. The war on terrorism, almost by definition, is infinite and unwinnable. No political leader is ever going to claim "victory" because that would be tempting fate. The best we can hope for is that it will eventually fade to more manageable proportions. It is also a war against an undefined, nebulous enemy. Bush insists, in the war on terrorism, that we are either for him or against him - and yet there is no international consensus on what the word "terrorism" means. Russia, China, and many other countries, have their own ideas about terrorism and have been happy to step up internal repression in the pretence of helping Bush. The war, as conceived by Bush, also treats terrorism in a vacuum, as a phenomenon that is simply evil and not the product of history or circumstance: Never mind the injustices or the violence committed by governments - all that the suicide bombers want is a business-class ticket to paradise. The result is a war that tries to deal with the symptoms - by making terrorism more difficult - while ignoring the factors that turn people toward violence. This is rather like the crime prevention strategy of fitting extra bolts to your windows and doors in the hope that burglars will rob your neighborās house instead: It may be worth doing, but donāt expect it to cure the underlying problem. During the first year of the war on terrorism, according to the US State Departmentās annual report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, there appeared to be some progress in dealing with the symptoms. The number of international terrorist incidents (as defined by the State Department) fell to 199 in 2002 from 355 the year before. But a closer look shows that the reduction occurred almost entirely in South America, which is hardly a hotbed of Islamic militancy. If the South American figures are excluded, the war on terrorism reduced the number of year-on-year attacks by only five. Worldwide casualties reported by the State Department in 2002 were 2,738 compared with 5,431 in 2001 (the year of Sept. 11). If the exceptionally high toll of Sept. 11 is excluded, the total for 2001 was slightly less than half of last yearās figure. The casualty totals for 2000 and 1999 were 1,211 and 940 respectively - a lot lower than last yearās figure - though 1998 was a bad year with 6,695 casualties. Counting the terrorist attacks for this year is likely to give the State Department a headache because of the situation in Iraq. Attacks on US troops, for instance, are not regarded as terrorism if a "state of hostilities" exists, but George Bush officially ended "major hostilities" on May 1. Maybe they will be counted, maybe not. While the progress made by the United States in tackling the symptoms of terrorism is at best debatable, there are signs that the broader anti-terrorism project is running into trouble, along with the associated wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and may even be worsening the problem. The war on terror is not diminishing or containing paramilitary threats worldwide, according to a new report by the Oxford Research Group which was written by Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University. Since Sept. 11, despite success in forestalling some attacks, more than 350 people have been killed by groups linked to Al-Qaeda and almost 1,000 injured. "Military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed significantly to dent Al-Qaedaās capacities, and the US military presence may serve as a further focus for radical paramilitaries," the report says. "European and majority world opinion has moved against US policy in key areas. US actions are increasingly perceived worldwide as part of a program to economically exploit developing countries. Levels of anti-Americanism have risen significantly." In Afghanistan, the war removed the Taleban regime which sheltered Osama Bin Laden and his supporters - in effect by taking sides in a civil war - but failed to capture either Bin Laden or Mulla Omar, the Talebanās leader. More than 18 months later, there are still 10,000 US troops fighting in Afghanistan. The US-installed government has little influence outside the capital, drug production is flourishing again, and yet only last week, President Bush predicted a "triumph of democracy and tolerance" there. With vast numbers of US troops now pinned down in Iraq, it is reasonable to expect that the Taleban and other groups in Afghanistan will step up their activities. Iraq itself had no direct connection with Sept. 11, but attacking it soon became part of the cathartic process. In the absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (the official pretext for the invasion) President Bush now has to look for other reasons to justify the American presence - which the Baathists and others have helpfully provided. "Two years ago," Bush said in a speech last week, "I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front." That, in a nutshell, is why the war on terror will never be won. Bush needs terrorists as much as the terrorists need Bush. http://www.arabnews.com             The Mulindwas Communication Group "With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"             Groupe de communication Mulindwas "avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie"