Another fine mess(Bush 2 year war on terror accomplished less than nothing

[papau]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1040063,00.html
Another fine mess

Post-September 11, George Bush began an unwinnable war on multiple fronts against a nebulous enemy. And two years on, a new study shows, the campaign has had little impact on its targets. Brian Whitaker reports

Thursday September 11, 2003

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 don't normally expect aircraft carriers to be dispatched and missiles readied in order to deal with them. Five days after the September 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 September 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. Mr 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 Mr Bush.

The war, as conceived by Mr 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 towards 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 neighbour's house instead: it may be worth doing, but don't expect it to cure the underlying problem. During the first year of the war on terrorism, according to the US state department's 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 September 11). If the exceptionally high toll of September 11 is excluded, the total for 2001 was slightly less than half of last year's figure. The casualty totals for 2000 and 1999 were 1,211 and 940 respectively - a lot lower than last year's 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 September 11, despite success in forestalling some attacks, more than 350 people have been killed by groups linked to al-Qaida and almost 1,000 injured. "Military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed significantly to dent al-Qaida's 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 programme to economically exploit developing countries. Levels of anti-Americanism have risen significantly."

In Afghanistan, the war removed the Taliban 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 Mullah Omar, the Taliban's 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. <snip>

That, in a nutshell, is why the war on terror will never be won. Mr Bush needs terrorists as much as the terrorists need Mr Bush.

The 'War on Terrorism': Winning or Losing? - Oxford Research Group

[readmylips]

1. Mr Bush needs terrorists as much as the terrorists need Mr Bush.

and to add, little man bush not different from Saddam, has terrorized and will continue to terrorize 'his own people.' Bushie is the enemy and the terrorist of the USA.

[papau]

2. Here is link/detail to/on Oxford Paper that says Bush ineffective

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/winningorlosing.htm


Professor Paul Rogers, September 2003 "The 'War on Terrorism': Winning or Losing?" says that Two years on, we are losing the 'War on Terror' -Since 9/11, over 350 have been killed in attacks linked to al Qaida, with close to 1,000 injured - Afghanistan remains deeply unstable -occupying troops in Iraq represent '140,000 targets' and lists out in detail the attacks, both thwarted and successful, in the past two years. He says the al-Qaida network has actually been more active than before 9/11 and is collectively showing a capability that exceeds that existing before the 9/11 attacks." - that Al Qaida has grown in strength over the last two years. And that Afghanistan is a disaster because the Military victory over the Taliban was achieved partly by "the provision of large quantities of armaments to Northern Alliance forces, with these armaments subsequently cascading through warlord militias in post-war Afghanistan, strengthening the power of individual warlords and diminishing that of the putative government of Hamid Karzai."


He then suggest Jeff Sach's - and Dennis K's - solution of just get out of Iraq - whatever bad this results in will be less bad than our getting out latter - see VietNam

and suggests:
development aid to Afghanistan
UN to take a central role in Iraq
more vigorous policies to deliver improved development assistance, debt relief and trade reform to narrow the global socio-economic divide
Take the lead in setting a pro-development agenda at the EU, G8 and appropriate UN bodies
View has to encompass the possible connections between terrorism, poverty and exclusion. The growing global socio-economic divide is leading directly to the growth of radical social movements, some of which are prepared to use violence."
"Iraqis must be enabled to develop a democratic and independent state that may well choose to distance itself from Washington."
"It should be possible to involve a wider range of states in peacekeeping, including Arab states… such progress would not be readily achieved without a much clearer and more consistent support for the Israeli/Palestinian peace process."

"It is self-deluding to believe that we can make ourselves more secure through solely military means. Security will unavoidably mean sharing out the world's resources more fairly. Groups linked to al Qaida draw support from local discontent over economic, political or social injustice - symbolised, for many, on a global scale, by the US determination to keep control of key resources - chiefly, oil."

Professor Paul Rogers'latest book is 'Losing Control: Global Security in the 21st Century' (Pluto 2000, 2nd Edition 2002).
Contact: James Kemp, Oxford Research Group - 01865 242 819; [e-mail]