Understanding the War on Terror

Part 1

Published on September 14, 2006 By Draginol In War on Terror

This is going to be part one of a two part article that talks about what the War on Terror is about and how it got started.

Every so often I'll see a book or read an article that either asks "Why do they hate us?" or asserts how "we" squandered the "good will" that the United States had right after 9/11.

When I get into debates with people on these subjects the main problem I run into is that many people - on both sides of the debate - are appalling unfamiliar with history -- even recent history.

Let's start with a look back at the 90s. Right after the terrorist attack in New York there were a number of commentaries that argued essentially that we had it coming because of our "foreign policy". When pressed, these people could rarely point to anything concrete. Instead, you got ridiculous "bad karma" like arguments like "Didn't pass the Kyoto accords" (as if that was what caused 9/11).

The reality is, US foreign policy in the 90s was nothing short of heroic. If you felt US foreign policy in the 90s somehow justified the attack on 9/11 then I humbly submit that you are insane. Let us recap US foreign policy in the 90s:

The United States puts together an international force including Muslim states to roll back the unprovoked conquest of Kuwait. The US returns Kuwait to its recognized government and leaves only a US air base in Saudi Arabia in order to help implement the No-Fly zone.
Why did we have a No-Fly zone? Because Saddam was butchering Kurds in the North and Shiite Muslims in the south. The no-fly zone was there to help protect Muslims.
The US sends forces to Somalia to help deliver food to starving people. Local warlords, wanting to use that food to build their own vile little power base fight against US troops resulting in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident.
US helps Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo against "ethnic cleansing". Despite being located in Europe, the United States provided the vast bulk of aid.

This is just a sampling. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization that is part of the Islamic Fascism movement plots during the 90s on how to destroy the WTC. It was during the 90s that Al Qaeda made several attacks on US interests including the embassy bombings, the first WTC attack, and the USS Cole.

So anyone who somehow thinks that US behavior in the Middle East made us "deserve" 9/11 is just nuts.

Next, let's look at the argument that we "squandered" good will after 9/11. What good will was there actually? Le Monde saying "We are all Americans now?" France's response was to send a trivial number of special forces to Afghanistan.

Let's be clear here: For the past 50 years, the United States had been spending billions of dollars and stationing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Europe to defend Europe as part of its NATO obligation. The United States is brutally attacked, the source of the attack is identified, the country they are in located, and the regime supporting them determined. And what did the other nations of Europe do (other than UK - they rock)? Not a lot. They sent some troops but as a percentage of their forces or what they were capable of doing? Not very much. 50 years, trillions spent defending Europe and we get attacked and a trickle of forces from NATO are sent to Afghanistan. What good will? Momentary sympathy is not good will.

So why do people make such erroneous assertions that the US could somehow, realistically have avoided 9/11? Or that the US foreign misbehavior is somehow responsible? Or that the rest of the world was on our side but was squandered because of Iraq (which occurred two years later -- plenty of time to see "good will" translated into actionable will).

The answer I believe is that most people do not understand what the war on terror is about. Some people play semantical games ("You can't defeat a form of warfare") Some try to cloud the issue by arguing there really is no war, just American right-wing hysteria. But the truth is, the war on terrorism is a war on a particular ideology that is located in a specific area of the world. And that we'll get into in part 2...

Comments (Page 1)

ejihad

on Sep 14, 2006

Who Left This Hole in the Ground, Mr. President?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tShebEZmMqE&mode=related&search=

Draginol

on Sep 15, 2006

Okay, to keep the idiot level to a minimum, no anonymous comments.

Dr Guy

on Sep 15, 2006

Let's start with a look back at the 90s.

I find that kind of ironic, as those were, for the most part, the Clinton years, and the ones moaning about the "war on terror" are usually on the left. So they are now, backhandedly, criticizing the Clinton years? Ah, the irony!

Daniel Barnhoorn

on Sep 15, 2006

Brad,

I think that for the radical muslim the US support for Israel will outbalance anything you can ever list. That won't be the case for most of the people you might be debating with though

danny

Moderateman

on Sep 15, 2006

What kills me is that if America did not defend Europe during WW2 and after till the soviet union fell our "allies" would have been German or Russian. Gratitude is not something the Europeans are known for.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 15, 2006

Brad:
The same "leaders" in Congress who did nothing about terrorism in the 90s are now somehow "experts" about how to fight it now. They shut up in the 90s so why can't they shut up now.

Daniel Barnhoorn:
It's ironic that many people think our support of Israel is what is fuelling the anti US sentiment. I mean, there hasn't been one terrorist leader who has stated that, but Bin Laden himself said that he had no beef with the US until we "desacrated Mecca".

Genghis Hank

on Sep 15, 2006

I don't think that our foreign policy with regard to Israel is what is influencing the "leadership" of the various groups, but it makes a convient tool to influence the masses. The leaders of the various groups are in it for the same thing that the leaders of countries are. Namely, power. Hate and propraganda are just tools of statecraft to them, as is ideology. Yes, I know the same can be said of us, but in a different way. At least we don't encourage 14 year olds to strap bombs to their chests.

IMHO, when we hear the "failed foreign policy" arguement in the West, we are hearing the echos of the propraganda that was disiminated to the Middle East audience. Ironically, it becomes true just as a lie told often enough becomes the belief and then the "truth". Our foreign policy is in danger of failing not because of anything we did, but because enough people came to believe it failed.

Taranis

on Sep 16, 2006

I think the cold war also had an effect on US-Muslim relations, as well as Russian-Muslim relation's. Both sides in the cold war used the middle east to project their power, resulting in a hatred of all things not Muslim.

Another factor in bad relations with Muslims would to be ignorance of the majority of its people. Most regions in the Middle east are lead by religious fanatics, that see anything not Muslim as a threat to their power. If western ideas such as freedom of religion start to take hold in the region, they will start to loose their power and lavish life styles.

seldomseen

on Sep 17, 2006

But the truth is, the war on terrorism is a war on a particular ideology that is located in a specific area of the world

[...waiting for part II...]

The United States is brutally attacked, the source of the attack is identified, the country they are in located, and the regime supporting them determined.

Got that right.

The United States puts together an international force including Muslim states to roll back the unprovoked conquest of Kuwait. The US returns Kuwait to its recognized government and leaves only a US air base in Saudi Arabia in order to help implement the No-Fly zone.
Why did we have a No-Fly zone? Because Saddam was butchering Kurds in the North and Shiite Muslims in the south. The no-fly zone was there to help protect Muslims.
The US sends forces to Somalia to help deliver food to starving people. Local warlords, wanting to use that food to build their own vile little power base fight against US troops resulting in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident.
US helps Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo against "ethnic cleansing". Despite being located in Europe, the United States provided the vast bulk of aid.

Good synopsis.

most people do not understand what the war on terror is about

Seems to me, kind of like the blind guys and the elephant...many different "truths".

Hit the nail on the head. Lived there 1960s. Saw it firsthand. True.

Thanks for posting this.

schekker

on Sep 18, 2006

Allright, just my 2 cents:

Regarding your argument that the US hadn't it coming. It is actually quite simple: Action is reaction, even in politics and world domination. You project power, you get resistance. You project weakness, you get challenges of your power. So, yes, you had something coming because you had a foreign policy in the Middle East. Not that there would have been any realistic way around it. Whether you 'deserve' it is just a matter of whose site you're on. Basically I'm on the Western side, so I don't think so, but a lot of Muslims certainly think you did.

Then the part about the good will of the US. Don't expect much good will from me as an European, if you just equal me with the French. I'm not French, and my country has both troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Substantial enough that they really stress our foreign military abilities. And my country is not the only one. And don't come with the second world war either. For starters the US did nothing at all when we were occupied, they only started when they were attacked themselves. Not that noble. But still, the Canadians, the Brittish, even some Polish, and yeah, there were also Americans, liberated us. And we are still grateful to them all, the veterans who did the fighting and who are still honored in our liberation festivities. But it wasn't Bush who liberated us, nor was WWII the only time we were liberated.
The same for the cold war. You didn't just do the cold war to keep us safe. Still, we did profit from it, and for that America as a country still is mighty popular around here. The country is, its policy (and politicians) is not. There is a big difference between the two.

Then the squandering part, because yes, the US did squander a lot of the goodwill they had right after 9/11. And they squandered it mostly because of two things:
- lies, lies and lies. We have been lied to about Iraq, we have been lied to about secret CIA detention camps for terrorists. And if the US lied about those things to us, how can we trust them on other issues regarding their war on terror? And why would we sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for a bunch of lies?
- your square support for Israel against the Palestinians. Personally I mostly support the US position, but it is not the most popular one.

In your final part you play semantic games yourself with the 'war on terror'. The war on terror simply is not a war, just as the cold war was not a war, or the war on drugs. Especially the war on drugs is a good analogy in my opinion. It is not a war because there is no defined other side which can surrender, ending the war. Just as there will always be illegal drugs, there will always be some sort of terrorism. They question is not how to defeat them, but how to contain their threat to acceptable levels. And that is not a war, basically it is law enforcement, although very strong armed.

This doesn't mean that there isn't a problem;-) Yes, there is, and it needs to be addressed. The problem is certainly with a certain ideology, but is not contained to a certain part of the world, unless you include the UK in that part. And battling an ideology if you claim to be a champion of freedom yourself is a very difficult feat. But lets see what you have to say about that.

drmiler

on Sep 18, 2006

In your final part you play semantic games yourself with the 'war on terror'. The war on terror simply is not a war, just as the cold war was not a war, or the war on drugs. Especially the war on drugs is a good analogy in my opinion. It is not a war because there is no defined other side which can surrender, ending the war. Just as there will always be illegal drugs, there will always be some sort of terrorism. They question is not how to defeat them, but how to contain their threat to acceptable levels. And that is not a war, basically it is law enforcement, although very strong armed.

Well lets start with this. Your analogy is poor. The war on drugs.....They are trying to get their product into the US. And their is resistance to it. The terrorists have no such product. All they want to do is kill us. You are right in this much. It's "not really" a war, but it's a far cry from a law enforcement issue either. It's somewhere between the 2.

Then the squandering part, because yes, the US did squander a lot of the goodwill they had right after 9/11. And they squandered it mostly because of two things:
- lies, lies and lies. We have been lied to about Iraq

Then I would ask about this. What lies were told to you? And to clue you in on a secret? Most Americans do not really care whether or not the europeans like us (good will and all that rot).

For starters the US did nothing at all when we were occupied, they only started when they were attacked themselves. Not that noble. But still, the Canadians, the Brittish, even some Polish, and yeah, there were also Americans, liberated us. And we are still grateful to them all, the veterans who did the fighting and who are still honored in our liberation festivities. But it wasn't Bush who liberated us, nor was WWII the only time we were liberated.
The same for the cold war. You didn't just do the cold war to keep us safe. Still, we did profit from it, and for that America as a country still is mighty popular around here. The country is, its policy (and politicians) is not. There is a big difference between the two.

And you can retract this staement also. From wikipedia:

European Theatre
Lend-Lease

Main article: Lend-Lease
After France had fallen in 1940, the United Kingdom was out of money. Franklin Roosevelt persuaded the US Congress to pass the Lend-Lease act on March 11, 1941. The Lend-Lease act provided the United Kingdom and 37 other countries with $50 Billion dollars in military equipment and other supplies, $31.4 billion of it going to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom will finish paying off its Lend-Lease loans by the end of 2006. [1]

Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union

Link

And just to clear a little something up. FDR was pushing to get the US involved. But until Pearl the congress wasn't buying it. I might also suggest you read this too:

Link

COL Gene

on Sep 18, 2006

I agree that the U.S. had very little REAL good will in the Islamic world before 9/11. However our invasion of Iraq in March 2003 made a BAD situation MUCH WORSE. Recently the CIA estimated that the number of Al Qaeda increased from 20,000 in 2001 to about 50,000 today and they are more disbursed. We have expended lives and vast amounts of money and have increased by 2.5 times the number our enemies. That is not the way to defeat the terrorists that would attempt another 9/11 or WORSE.

The policy Bush is following is not winning the war on terrorism but increasing the number of terrorists that would take action against us. Now we have enabled a Civil War in Iraq. Some say it is not a Civil War because some areas are not experiencing the actual fighting. I would remind you from our history, that areas in the United States were NOT involved in the fighting during our Civil War. That did not mean we were not engaged in a struggle among the peoples of our country. That is what is taking place in Iraq and U.S. Forces CAN NOT settle the century old disputes that exist among the factions in Iraq.

Whenever we leave, there will be a period of increased fighting among the factions in Iraq and the outcome is not clear! We could end up with a country that will support al Qaeda like groups just like in Afghanistan. The Bush policy has made us LESS safe and increased the difficulty of defending our country in the future!

schekker

on Sep 18, 2006

If you think the terrorists are trying to kill you, then firstly, you are wrong, and secondly, they have succeeded. Terrorist victims are just collatoral damage. Their real goal is fear and disruption to weaken the enemy into submission. Similarly, the main problem with drugs is their disrupting effect on society. And it is a law enforcement issue as you can't tell terrorist or drug dealers from normal citizens. Only in areas where they have really taken control of the country does it become more like a military operation.
And remember, an analogy is just that, an analogy. Useful to make a point, but in the end the situations always differ.

Then I would ask about this. What lies were told to you? And to clue you in on a secret? Most Americans do not really care whether or not the europeans like us (good will and all that rot).

If you don't care, then why do I hear this constant whining about the European opinion and how irrelevant it is? If you don't care and it is irrelevant, it is not worth talking about. And certainly don't complain about a lack of support from countries you don't care about.

And you can retract this staement also.

The only thing I have to retract is my poor wording

I meant that the US did nothing while we were being occupied, which you more or less proved with your wikipedia link. And don't get me wrong, I don't blame them for it. My only point is, that the US was not as noble as Draginol made it look like, which doesn't mean that there is nothing my country shouldn't be grateful of (and indeed is, as proven by our current good relations with the US).

But the main reason I post here is one other important factor (IMHO) for the squandering part which I forgot to mention:
- human rights. If Americans were treated just like those terrorists, you would all cry foul. But hey, they are foreigners, and enemies of the state, so who cares. But we are also foreigners, and who is to decide whether we are enemies of the state or not? I can disappear without rights or trace just because the CIA (or whoever) screws up and decides I might be a terrorist. So we do care a lot more. Also, we have experienced this kind of behaviour on the receiving end during the occupation. So, yes, we feel very strongly about human rights, and any cause which tramples those rights can't really be a good cause.

Island Dog

on Sep 18, 2006

That is not the way to defeat the terrorists that would attempt another 9/11 or WORSE.

Then tell us how col? I bet you believe that being "nice" to terrorists and making France happy will make the terrorists not want to kill us, right? If fighting terrorism with force means making more enemies for the time being then fine.......appeasing them will get you nowhere.

DesignGuy

on Sep 18, 2006

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home...

I'm waiting for Part II.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!