The US war on a way of life

0
63

Introduction

A recent report by Jeffrey Record, a professor in the Department of Strategy and International Security at the US Air Force’s Air War College, [1] is a classic example of American analysts’ uncovering the US Administration’s vague objectives and flawed approach towards the “war on terrorism,” yet narrowly missing its core, but unstated, objective.

The reason for their failure is their inability to make two kinds of crucial linkages: one, between the questions they raise and the facts they unearth, and two, between the flaws in the US approach and the administration’s unstated objective of the “war on terror.”

Following the prevailing thumb rule among the American analysts, Mr. Record also measures success in the “war on terror” only against the stated objectives. As a result, many vital issues remain unclear.

1. The Problems:

1.1 – US Administration’s Problem

The US administration, however, is not naïve to identify the problems mentioned in this report. It knows what it is up to. Mr. Record would withdraw the objections he raised if he realized the unstated objective behind the administration’s postulating “a multiplicity of enemies,” conflating “them into a monolithic threat,” and subordinating “strategic clarity to moral clarity.”

The administration’s only problem is that despite the overwhelming military and technological superiority it is not in a position to single out Islam as a direct “threat” to its interests and the main target of the whole exercise.

Many labels such as “political” and “militant” Islam have been used. School curricula throughout the Muslim world are being revised in favor of the US point of view.[2] Islamic religious institutions are put under tighter restrictions. Crackdown is underway on Muslim NGOs. American General’s are emphasizing superiority of “their God.” Bible Belt missionaries are rushing on a “war for souls” in Iraq and Afghanistan.[3] Yet, the administration cannot openly declare the unstated objective that it is at war with Islam –” the only remaining “threat” to what Bush and his fellows call “our way of life.”

1.2 – Presenting the problem

Mr. Record supports the concept of “irregular enemy” with the argument that even though “the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes were militarily smashed, combat continues, even escalates, in Afghanistan and Iraq.” The reality, however, is that the combat continues simply because the Taliban and Saddam were not the problem.

The “problem” is Islam for being the only ideologically viable alternative to the repressive despots sitting in the Muslim world and some megalomaniacs ruling the West and initiating wars just because God tells their flag bearer to do so.[4]

To address the “problem” of Islam, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism concludes, “terrorism as a threat to our [Western] way of life.”[5] The story, however, does not come to an end with amalgamating Western “way of life” with security.

To address the problem described as terrorism, Mr. Record also agrees with the administration’s view that the strategy should “underlines a broader purpose” i.e., “to build an international order where more countries and peoples are integrated into a world consistent with the values we [the Westerners] share.”[6]

It shows those who do not share with Western values are the source of terrorism. It also means all other ways to live and govern are not acceptable. A realistic view reveals that besides the Western way, there is hardly any other way of life left other than Islam.

Everything has thus to be consistent with the values of the warriers of the “war on terrorism.” Other than controlling natural resources, this is one of the reasons, which inspires totalitarians into conflating the threat of terrorism and “underline a broader purpose” for their war.

1.3 – At war with the problem

It is interesting that analysts like Mr. Record do the much needed research and dig out many revealing quotes but fail to extract right conclusion from these valuable references. For example, he quotes Bush, who in declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq, stated that the “battle of Iraq is one victory in the war on terror that began on September 11, 2001…That terrible morning, 19 evil men– the shock troops of a hateful ideology gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions.”[7] It needs no super genius to understand which ideology he was referring to with utmost contempt. After all, all the alleged hijackers were Muslims.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also argues that “a transformed Iraq can become a key element in a very different Middle East in which the ideologies of hate will not flourish.”[8] The “ideologies of hate” are not the product of Islam no matter how much we blame “Islamists” for it.

People are not born with the “ideologies of hate,” nor do their religions teach them to hate. When generations grow up under visible and invisible occupation; when they see a world power sustaining repressive regimes that grind them perpetually; when they see their loved ones dying at the hands of US installed regimes, they do not need Osama to teach them ideologies of hate or misinterpret the Qur’an to fit it to his agenda.

2. Consequences of denial:

2.1 – Consequences of denying administration’s problem

Many Muslims and non-Muslims are still living in denial of the administration’s undeclared objective of the war. The latest report from the Strategic Studies Institute, nevertheless, clearly shows how this denial is holding many sharp minds from understanding the reasons behind the so obvious contradictions between the administration’s stated objectives and the way it is handling the vague “war on terrorism.”

This denial makes many honest American analysts conclude the war on Iraq as a mistaken “detour” from the “war on terror.” In reality, war on Iraq is an integral part of the “war on terrorism.” One only needs to look at it from the perspective of the unstated objective to understand its importance. The ground realities make Mr. Record declare the stated objectives of this war as “unrealistic” which could lead the US into “a hopeless quest for absolute security.”

These analysts are misled simply because the goal is not security of the most secured state in the first place. It is domination and defeating the only ideology and a way of life that has the potential to stand for the supremacy of justice against tyranny.

2.2 – Another confusion: War or not a War?

Mr. Record contends that Washington’s labeling the struggle against “terrorism” as a “war” is also not correct. He believes that “intelligence-based arrests and assassinations, not divisions destroyed or ships sunk” could not be covered under the label of a war.

The crucial missing point is that without calling it a war, Washington could never invade country after country to achieve the undeclared objective. Labeling it as a war seems illogical to Mr. Record because he fails to link it with the fact he has highlighted in the report. He finds that the administration succeeded in mobilizing “all elements of national power as well as the services of many other countries.” Would it have been possible without labeling it as a war?

Jeffrey Record understands that wars have “clear beginnings and endings,” but the line between war and peace “has been steadily blurring for the United States since the end of the Cold War.” After reaching the reality, Mr. Record once more misses the crucial point due to years of negative influence of the way mainstream media presents the administration’s point of view about this war.

He believes the blurring of line between war and peace is due to “irregular enemies.” The concept of “irregular enemies” only justifies invasions and occupations. It also helps camouflage the reality that there are no regular or irregular enemies, or their combination, capable enough to threaten the US interests unless fully supported by the elements from within the US, who are interested in global domination even at the cost of American lives.

2.3 – Unclear connections

Mr. Record argues that for the US administration “the connection between tyranny and terrorism, and between ‘freedom’ and the absence of terrorism, is clear.” It is not. The reason is that none of the alleged 9/11 terrorists was from Iraq, a country which did not even sponsor 9/11. Saddam’s tyranny did not produce any terrorist. However, the almost daily deadly bombing in Iraq shows the US brand of freedom has created many terrorists. Why are the US “liberated” Iraqis bent upon “terrorizing” the Americans? This is where all logic of connecting freedom and the “absence of terrorism” fails because the objective of war on a way of life is not to bring freedom and democracy in the first place.

In his September 7, 2003, televised address to the nation, Bush stated: “The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject “the ideologies of terror” and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat.[9] In the absence of Saddam, the reality on the ground totally contradicts this logic of the ideologies of terror. This should be sufficient to understand connection between the cause and effect. Everyone now knows what leads people to taking extreme actions for defending their freedom.

3. Al-Qaeda

3.1 – Al-Qaeda is a movement

Denial of the administration’s undeclared objective leads many analysts to self-contradictions at times. In his critical report, Mr. Record unknowingly justifies the US tactics in the ongoing “war on terror” on the basis that this war is “fought to different standards of success…against a terrorist threat like al-Qaeda.” Whereas the author concedes at another place in the report that the scope of this war does not encompass Al-Qaeda alone.

The other point that he misses is that Al-Qaeda is not an organization. It is a global movement against injustice and double standards.

Although Al-Qaeda is the title given to the group of a few hundred people at the most in Afghanistan, but with the US “war on terror” unfolding at home and abroad, many people have unknowingly become part of a movement against global tyranny and injustice. The US flawed definition of enemy is fast labeling more and more supporters and activists for peace and justice as Al-Qaeda terrorists.

The founding members of Al-Qaeda have long been either dead or locked up in Guantanamo Bay. However, for the US, every person, who resists its hegemony is an Al-Qaeda terrorist. The war thus broadens in scope and with it intensifies reaction to the tactics the US employs for achieving the unstated objective of the war.

Because every member of the global resistance movement does not subscribe to the same tactics employed by Osama bin Laden, the US cannot gauge the extent of damage the increasing resistance is causing to its grand ambitions.

3.2 – Oversimplifying Al-Qaeda

It is very unfortunate that analysts, such as Mr. Record, realize and quote others saying that Al-Qaeda “is not a single terrorist group but a global insurgency."[10]Yet they ignore the “Why” and “How” aspects of the debate. Muslims as a whole –” except Musharraf, Karzai and Mubarak –” could not be having an inhuman butcher mentality. A “global insurgency” could not be limited to Muslims alone. Ignoring objectives of this global movement reduces such reports on the “war on terrorism” into oversimplification of the reality.

This over simplification further leads many analysts into drawing even more bizarre conclusions. The so-called expert on terrorism, Bruce Hoffman, for example, notes that terrorists “do not function in the open as armed units, generally do not attempt to seize or hold territory, deliberately avoid engaging enemy military forces in combat and rarely exercise any direct control or sovereignty over either territory or population."[11] What he confuses here are motives of a state behind entering into war and motive of a people dedicating everything to achieve freedom.

Similar to the just war doctrine for the state, there is a just resistance concept for people struggling against state oppression and tyranny. If the US control illegitimate governments at the top, it does not mean that majority of population in these states would also surrender to the will of Washington. The so declared terrorists’ making no attempt to “seize or hold territory,” does not mean that they do not have a broader agenda or their objective is illegitimate.

3.3 – Difference in approach of Al-Qaeda “members”

Osama chose the violent path because he had tasted the fruits of violent resistance against another super power. He chose this path because that’s how his American trainers trained him. Other members of the movement, mostly non-Muslims, educated in the US, have dedicated their lives to exposing the truth behind 9/11, Iraq war, or Oklahoma City bombing. They have chosen non-violent paths according to their free-from-CIA’s-involvement backgrounds. The common denominator of their struggle, however, remains undoing the global tyranny.

Many analysts believe that Al-Qaeda is comprised of “leaders, lieutenants, financiers, logisticians and other facilitators, foot soldiers, recruiters, supporting population segments, and religious or otherwise ideological figures."[12] Managing these factors at global level needs highly professional skills and arrangements which do not exist with Al-Qaeda. From organizational point of view, how can Al-Qaeda survive today when its leaders could not effectively communication between Kabul and Qandahar before September 11.

As a movement, however, Al-Qaeda needs none of these listed factors. It feeds and thrives on western double standards without any formal links among its members..

When viewed from the Al-Qaeda as a movement’s perspective, the threat of “terrorism” is far widespread than the US could ever anticipate or effectively contain. In Iraq, it is not Saddam or Al-Qaeda sympathizers attacking the US forces. These are ordinary people who suffered under US-UN genocidal sanctions far more than Saddam Hussein’s repression. They did not stand to the Republican Guards. American GIs, however, seem to be their eternal enemies.

In Palestine it is not Osama or his “fellow terrorists” sacrificing their lives. It is young American and British who are getting killed while pressing for the same demands which Osama never got tired of repeating. These are all “terrorists,” posing threat to the US and sacrificing lives for justice in their own peculiar ways.

3.4 – Losses of Al-Qaeda

Mr. Record presents the US “war on terror” more “problematic” than Vietnam War because in his view the “enemy” in this case is considered “able to control his losses by retaining the tactical and operational initiative.” This is another typical generalization on part of the US “experts” on terrorism.

We can understand it from the example that presently there may not be any Pakistani in the ranks of Al-Qaeda. Even those who crossed the border into Afghanistan before the US invasion in 2001were not there for Al-Qaeda. They were there for supporting the Taliban. However, if the US forces attempted to change their indirect occupation of Pakistan into a physical occupation, it would suffer far tough resistance than it faces in Iraq.

The issue here is not of an enemy “able to control his losses.” It is rather the extent of anti-Americanism –” the amount of hatred that the US policies have generated over the past many decades –” that is on the verge of crossing threshold for many around the world. From here onwards, the more people suffer, the tougher will get the resistance, called terrorism in official terminology.

Mr. Record regurgitates the official theory that notwithstanding Al-Qaeda’s loss of its infrastructure and the killing or capture of one-third of its leadership, it is “now reconstituted and doing business in a somewhat different manner, but more insidious and just as dangerous as in its pre-11 September incarnation."[13] Denying the fact that Al-Qaeda was not the master-mind and implementer of 9/11 attacks holds such analysts from seeing the enemies within.

Mr. Record highlights the disastrous US military intervention in Vietnam “against an enemy perceived to be little more than an extension of Kremlin designs.” Here, he fails again to add that every Muslim calling for real freedom and self-rule is also now considered an extension of Al-Qaeda designs in the Muslim world, where no values are acceptable to Washington other than its own. The US drafting of Afghan and Iraq’s constitutions are recent examples in this regard.

3.5 – The Myth of Al-Qaeda

The myths that Al-Qaeda is now “even harder to identify and neutralize” blinds them to seeing the reality that no one needs to be a Muslim or member of a terrorist network to be an anti-US government. It is not that Al-Qaeda is now harder to identify and neutralize. It is that the tyranny has intensified and so is resistance to it in many different forms.

It is not that “terrorist” networks are “harder to neutralize.” It is that the US administration has failed to realize consequences of its refusal to look at the way it is dealing with select individuals from the Muslim world and thinking showering blessings on them would help them blind 1.2 billion Muslims and everyone else to its double standards.

Musharraf, for example, is a partner in the so-called war on terror, but he has repeatedly called the US “lesser of the two evils.” Just recently he told a joint sitting of the parliament that he had no option other than supporting the US. It is evident that the moment his perks are gone, he may well end up as a most dangerous leader of the resistance movement against the US injustice, because deep in his heart he realizes the reality.

Instead of comforting themselves with the warm embraces of Muslim opportunists, the US administration needs assessment of the simmering rage both in the US and abroad today. The US cannot bribe people indefinitely, nor can the bribed ones blind the rest for ever. The enemy is thus identified, but it is hard for the US to neutralize because neutralizing means exterminating a people, as the US did to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that is getting increasingly difficult for the US.

3.6 – Killing message with the messengers

A White House paper agrees that in many regions, “lasting grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process."[14] However, no concrete steps have been taken to put a genuine political process on tracks for addressing legitimate concerns. Reason for the illogical approach is given in the very next sentence of the paper: “But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands.” This is how legitimate concerns are turned into “terrorist demands” to avoid solution. An alleged terrorist’s articulating the same concerns does not make these illegitimate.

At this point, Mr. Record once more lean on the most dangerous assumption that “satisfaction of said grievances would probably do little or nothing to mollify Islamist extremist organizations motivated by religious ideology."[15] This dangerous assumption dictates, for instance that establishing an independent Palestinian state or giving Palestinians equal rights in the same state would not solve the problem of “terrorism.” So let there be no Palestine. Let there be no democracy in Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere. Let the friendly dictators keep their masses repressed. Let the Palestinians suffer, but liberate Iraqis. Does it make any sense?

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism declared: “Our goal will be reached when Americans and other civilized people around the world can lead their lives free of fear from terrorist attacks."[16] People everywhere deserve to live free from fear and oppression. Were not Iraqis civilized people, living in peace, never thinking of shooting and bombing Americans before the US decided to occupy their country? Their resistance to “liberation” has now turned them into uncivilized “terrorists.” Same is the story with Palestinians and Afghans. The bottom-line, is that the struggle against a people, who want to live by their religion, under different banners and slogans will always bring more and more death and destruction.

The so-called war on Al-Qaeda might appeal some in the West, but hardly any one in the Muslim World. Many Muslims disagree with Al-Qaeda’s approach, but very few would reject the reasons Al-Qaeda cites for its struggle. The US cannot kill the message because the messenger is alleged to have carried out 9/11 attacks. Too much has been done to eliminate both peaceful and violent messengers, but so little is done to address the root causes that very few can deny.

3.7 – Al-Qaeda and 9/11

The author argues, “one does not doubt for a moment that al-Qaeda, had it possessed a deliverable nuclear weapon, would have used it on 9/11.” It depends on how much the US double standards push a people it trained to react violently beyond the threshold and how much local support is available. Al-Qaeda was unable to carry out 9/11 attacks. Whoever made 9/11 possible, are very much able to make the nuclear attack on the US also well. The problem is that the facilitators within are in-charge and they divert public attention to going after opponents of the US government.

If the US abandoned its dream of total domination and let others live their own way of life as well, the much-exaggerated threat they pose will automatically come to an end. The big task for the Americans, however, is to neutralize the threat from the real enemies within.

4. Terrorism

4.1 – What Is Terrorism?

Mr. Record discussed numerous ways to define terrorism, many of which on application to the US government prove it the master of international terrorism. However, Mr. Record concludes: “To be sure, consensus on the definition of terrorism is hardly necessary to prosecute counterterrorist operations against specific terrorist organizations. We know a terrorist act when we see one, and we know that al-Qaeda is an enemy.”

This is a clear sign of a manufactured mindset, not an intellectual conclusion to a discussion on terrorism. It goes in favor of the totalitarians in Western capitals to conclude that consensus on the definition of terrorism is “hardly necessary.” The continued vagueness might help them deprive others of their right to resists. However, irrespective of any definition, people are aware enough to know the criminal act when it is committed. Hiding behind some twisted concept of terrorism is hardly enough to exonerate leaders of the “civilized world” from their crimes against humanity.

It is not only Mr. Record who knows that Al-Qaeda “is an enemy.” Everyone knows his enemy. The problem arises when you start considering an ideology or a concept your enemy. This is where all definitions fail and one cannot stop seeing the enemy all around. It becomes hard to declare victory. The same sickness afflicted the administration mind in response to the threat of communism.

A 1988 study may have counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[17]Yet the bottom line is that the tactics the US and its allies have adopted for domination and occupations are injustice, oppression and repression. What the targeted people do in response is retaliation. Whereas terrorism is nothing but a disease, afflicting hearts of the oppressors.

Terrorism is a clear phenomenon. When men start fearing men due to their way of life or ideology, no amount of weapons, no length of occupations, no amount of detentions in Guantanamo Bay, no amount of mindless bombing, killings and an unlimited “war on terrorism” can ever bring peace to the diseased hearts.

What then scares the globalists? It is the fear of payback. It is natural. In nature all things are double, one against another — tit for tat; an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth; blood for blood; love for love — give and it shall be given to you. The unjust are scared of the payback for the injustice they staunchly support and stand for. The hypocritical US policy towards Iraq and Israel is an example that needs no explanation.

4.2 – Terrorism not a method

Mr. Record leans on the logic of analysts such as Daniel Pipes. They want the US administration to openly declare it a war on Islam because terrorism is just “a method of violence, a way of waging war.” They ask: How do you defeat a technique, as opposed to a flesh-and-blood enemy?

These analysts are missing two points. Firstly, it is not a war on “terrorism” in the first place. So, it matters little if it is a technique or not. Secondly, the US is not in a position to openly declare its unstated objective. In that case, it would lose support of the bought over mercenaries like General Musharraf on the political front and many sold out scholars of Islam on the intellectual front. Role of these mercenaries is vital for paving the way towards total domination.

Those who consider “terrorism” as a technique adopted by Muslims alone, forget that Muslims have been forced to react this way under prevailing circumstance. They are required to resist injustice with the little available means. Labeling it as terrorism makes no sense. Terror lies in the hearts of the oppressors, not in the reaction or mode of retaliation of the oppressed. This morbid fear of a way of life forces the tyrants to take indiscriminate actions like the “war on terrorism.”

Even if we agree that terrorism is only Muslim’s technique and defeating it is not possible. It is not impossible to defeating the reasons behind adopting this technique. The solution is to attack this technique by eliminating the root causes that drive people into adopting this technique.

Conclusion

The war on a way of life continues

Mr. Record fails to understand the unstated objective and complexity of the US intervention in the Muslim world. He criticizes the US government for provoking additional “national- and regional-level terrorist organizations that have stayed out of America’s way into targeting the U.S. interests and even the American homeland?” On the one hand his words prove that the target of these groups is not the US. On the other hand, it shows lack of understanding on part of Mr. Record about the US undeclared war on Islam as a way of life. To disguise the unstated objective, the US had to lump different things together to make the analysts confuse about strategic clarity in the administration’s approach.

The reason behind the US apparently unnecessarily targeting all organizations related to Islamic movement is not that they seek freedom without hurting the US interests. It is that the US happens to be the leader of Western values and way of life, and also one of the main supporters of the repressive regimes installed to promote secularism for undermining Islam. Success of these Islamic groups will not threaten security of the US. It will rather be success of another ideology that the US was to suppress at all cost. One cannot understand the apparently illogical moves of targeting all groups when viewed from the point of view of the undeclared purpose of the “war in terrorism.”

Conclusive evidence

Mr. Record also suggests to “transform the Middle East into a region of participatory self-government and economic opportunity” and then goes on to reject the same proposal with the observation that it was “this very threat of Islamists using democracy to win power that provoked the suppression of budding democratic institutions in Algeria.”

This is yet another grand misconception. Democracy is considered a blessing but only for those who do not espouse to live by Islam. If Mubarak and Musharraf come to power and do not leave, it is no problem at all. However, people under the banner of Islam must not be allowed even to aspire for contesting elections lest they decide not to leave power –” it does not matter if 100,000 die in the process.

Mr. Record agrees that indeed, “fear of an Islamist electorate accounts in no small measure for the persistence of autocracy in Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.” Here the point is proved conclusively that democracy is not the issue at all. The objective is simply to keep control of the Muslim states and check Islamic values and system, whether that is through autocracy, “friendly democracy” or outright occupation.

In a clear sign of advocacy for tyranny, Mr. Record, concludes that the US “might have to settle for stability in the form of a friendly autocracy of the kind with which it enjoys working relationships in Cairo, Riyadh, and Islamabad.” The only difference between Mr. Record advocacy for tyranny and the US government practical actions in this regard is that the administration has embraced the same policy without publicly pronouncing or defending it. The poor emotional analysts publicly propose what is already in practice and is one of the root causes of terror in the hearts of the oppressors.

Notes:

[1]. Jeffrey Record, “Bounding the Global War on terrorism,” December 2003. The Strategic Studies Institute. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf . Jeffrey Record is a professor in the Department of Strategy and International Security at the US Air Force’s Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama.

[2]. Athman Amran, “Islamic Schools Under Scrutiny, Say Leaders,” The East African Standard (Nairobi), January 5, 2004.
“Saudi scholars warn against changing school books,” Reuters, 03 Jan 2004 10:23:50 GMT

“Jordan textbooks to explain resistance,” Al-Jazeera, Tuesday 30 December 2003, 16:33. “Jordanian schools will get new textbooks in the 2004-2005 school year that will differentiate between "terrorism and legitimate resistance."

“GCC agrees to revise textbooks, Al-Jazeera, Tuesday 23 December 2003, 1:35 Makka Time, 22:35 GMT. ” Gulf Arab leaders have agreed to revise school textbooks which Washington claims fuel anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiments.”

[3].”Bible Belt missionaries set out on a ‘war for souls’ in Iraq,” London Telegraph, December 27, 2003, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F27%2Fwirq27.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F27%2Fixhome.html

[4]. Arnon Regular, “`Road map is a life saver for us,’ PM Abbas tells Hamas,” Haaretz, June 26, 2003. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Also see: Ira Chernus, “Did Bush Say God Told Him To Go To War?” Published on Monday, June 30, 2003 by CommonDreams.org url: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

[5]. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Washington, DC: The White House, February 2003, p. 9.

[6]. Ibid. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, p. 30.

[7]. Quoted in Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane, “Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds,” Washington Post, September 6, 2003.

[8]. Condoleezza Rice, “Transforming the Middle East,” Washington Post, August 7, 2003. Emphasis added.

[9]. Excerpted from the text of President Bush’s September 7, 2003, speech, reprinted in “Bush: ‘We Will Do What Is Necessary’,” Washington Post, September 8, 2003.

[10]. Daniel Byman, “Scoring the War on Terrorism,” The National Interest,Summer 2003, pp. 79-80. Also see John Arquilla, David Ronfelt, and Michael Zanini, “Networks, Netwar, and Information-Age Terrorism,” in Howard and Sawyer, pp. 96-119.

[11]. Bruce Hoffman, “Defi ning Terrorism,” in Russell D. Howard and Reid
L. Sawyer, eds., Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New Security
Environment, Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2003, p. 22.

[12]. Paul K. Davis and Brian Michael Jenkins, Deterrence and Infl uence in Counterterrorism, A Component in the War on al Qaeda, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2002, p. x1. Also see Daniel S. Gressgang, “Terrorism in the 21st Century: Reassessing the Emerging Threat,” in Max G. Manwaring, ed., Deterrence in the 21st Century, Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2001.

[13]. Strategic Survey 2002/2003, An Evaluation and Forecast of World Affairs, London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2003, pp. 9, 10.

[14]. George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington, DC: The White House, September 2002, p.5.

[15]. For examinations of religion-inspired terrorism, see Magnus Ranstorp, “Terrorism in the Name of Religion,” and Mark Juergensmeyer, “The Logic of Religious Violence,” in Howard and Sawyer, pp. 121-136, 136-155, respectively; Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, The Age of Sacred Terror, New York: Random House, 2002; and Stern, Terror in the Name of God, op.cit.

[16]. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Washington, DC: The White House, February 2003, p. 1.

[17]. Alex P. Schmid, Albert J. Jongman, et al., Political Terrorism: A New Guide to
Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988, pp. 5-6.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here