Vous devez avoir un compte pour utiliser cette option.
| Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
'War On Terror' Loses Clear Direction
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Fri Sep 8, 2006 @ 1:22pm |
 Coolness: 92325 | In the five years since 9/11, a clear-cut and well-supported "war on terror" declared by President Bush has become confused and divisive.
Whereas Le Monde declared the day after 9/11: "We are all Americans now", a placard at a demonstration in London recently read: "We are all Hezbollah now". American policy has had successes. The quick war in Afghanistan after 9/11 (now flaring up again in the south) toppled the Taleban and has denied al-Qaeda its training bases, which were important to it (base is what the word Qaeda means). Al-Qaeda has lost much of its leadership. It has not toppled governments as it had hoped. Western forces have not left the Middle East, and in particular the government of Saudi Arabia, guardian of Mecca, which is probably Osama Bin Laden's ultimate target, stands. Yet Western and other publics are left in fear, and rightly so. Al-Qaeda is no invention. Its impact - or that of its sympathisers - was seen not only in New York and Washington but in Bali, Madrid, London, Morocco, Istanbul and elsewhere. The power of fear Fear is a powerful motivating factor. Fear after 9/11 led to the Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. But this doctrine has not been endorsed by all. Doubts, divisions and defections have developed among American allies. For many around the world, sympathy for the United States has changed into suspicion and, for some, even into hatred. The prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the treatment of prisoners, secret prisons and rendition flights all added to this feeling. The changes just announced by President Bush - acknowledging and emptying the secret camps and other moves - might answer some criticism but not all and their overall effect remains to be seen. Pessimism about Western tactics Professor Michael Clarke of King's College, London, is gloomy in the short term at least. "If I was Osama Bin Laden sitting in my cave, I would think I was winning," he said. "I would consider that I am still at large, I have a global movement, I strike a chord with young Muslims everywhere, I am an inspiration not a planner and I have lured the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq of my choosing and of my way of fighting." He added: "Nor is the West countering the easy narrative offered by the jihadis. They are, and I agree with the Bush language on this, Islamic fascists, but we are not engaging enough in the war of ideas and are instead dwelling on their actions. They can counter that by dwelling on ours, in a game of moral equivalence." Iraq hangs like a shadow The shadow of Iraq hangs over American policy and the world's view of it. The problem is that many governments and peoples do not see Iraq as part of the answer to terror. They see it as part of the cause. They therefore want to distance themselves from American policy. Not that al-Qaeda's terrorism was prompted by the Iraq invasion. The 11 September attacks preceded Iraq and recently, German trains were the target of an attempted attack even though Germany opposed the invasion. But Iraq has probably been the greatest single factor in producing the confusion that is now evident. Washington declares that Iraq must be won or the war on terror will be lost. Opponents say it has made things worse, though many opponents add that now it must be won. Iraq hangs like shadow over war on terror A difficulty for the Bush administration is that it argued differently when the invasion was announced. Then, it was about weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism floated only in the background as a nightmare in which a rogue state might give some terrorist nuclear weapons. Now, Iraq has been declared the frontline which has to be held or it will move to the streets of America. Language changes to reflect policy shifts The extent to which Iraq has influenced events can be seen by looking at the language used by President Bush before and after the invasion. On 31 August this year he told the American Legion in Salt Lake City: "This war will be long... but it's a war we must wage, and a war we will win...The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century." For many around the world, sympathy for the United States has changed into suspicion and, for some, even into hatred His use of the future tense in "We will win" contrasts with what he said before the invasion. On 26 February 2003, he declared in a speech in Washington: "We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaeda. Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning." The change of tense shows how far any expectation of victory has been put off. No settled narrative It is perhaps not unlike the debate over South Vietnam. That war, too, was declared necessary for victory in the other long war, the Cold War. In those days, it was said that if South Vietnam went, the whole of South East Asia would go too, in a fall of the dominoes. And nor has Washington been effective in solving another motivating factor for the jihadis - the Israel//Palestine conflict. Its portrayal of Israel as a victim in the war on terror sits uneasily with, say, the Europeans, who generally see the dispute as territorial not ideological and therefore amenable to a compromise. There is therefore no agreed and clear narrative for the "war on terror". Optimism about Western values Professor Clarke is more optimistic in the long term. "It will get worse before it gets better but I expect western policy to win eventually because it offers a superior, political, moral and economic model. However we have not made things easy for ourselves by mistakes, first in Afghanistan by allowing Taleban and al-Qaeda leaders to escape and then on a grand scale in make a strategic mistake by invading Iraq. "This is probably going to take a generation to resolve, until the angry young jihadis turn into tired old men, as the Marxist-Leninists did." [ news.bbc.co.uk ] |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» m4xom4x replied on Sat Sep 9, 2006 @ 2:46pm |
 Coolness: 44355 | moondancer, nice cut & paste, but what is your point of view concerning this article ? |
| I'm feeling ( >'.')> right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Mon Sep 11, 2006 @ 10:31am |
| Coolness: 92325 | I agree that the last line will come true with compromise and not war. AKA the European way. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Mon Sep 11, 2006 @ 6:03pm |
 Coolness: 201285 | Yes compromise and not war. That was what all of Europse did while Hitler was rising to power and gathering his forces. Nobody wanted a war so they compromised and turned their cheek to what he was doing. That gave him a great chance to prepare for war which as we all know was absolutely devestating.
Millions of lives could have been saved if they attacked Hitler before he got too powerful. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cvxn replied on Mon Sep 11, 2006 @ 8:04pm |
 Coolness: 178705 | Erm, I think there never was a clear direction to war on terrorism.
War *is* terrorism. |
| I'm feeling dead, but dreaming right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Haha replied on Tue Sep 12, 2006 @ 8:13am |
| Coolness: 40595 | War is also medecine and technology!
It's science! Are all wars terrorism? What about the defending side? |
| I'm feeling rlim shaikorthic right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Morphine replied on Tue Sep 12, 2006 @ 10:54am |
| Coolness: 51030 | Originally Posted By SCOTTYP
Yes compromise and not war. That was what all of Europse did while Hitler was rising to power and gathering his forces. Nobody wanted a war so they compromised and turned their cheek to what he was doing. That gave him a great chance to prepare for war which as we all know was absolutely devestating. Millions of lives could have been saved if they attacked Hitler before he got too powerful. huh...i was just thinking that also.... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Sep 12, 2006 @ 11:08am |
 Coolness: 339725 | We should have killed hitler when he was a baby!
No! Let's kill all babies! You know, since it's pretty much guarranteed that some of them will become genocidal dictators, right? |
| I'm feeling beersex.net right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Tue Sep 12, 2006 @ 11:34am |
| Coolness: 92325 | I dunno if attacking Hitler beforehand would have necessarily been a better idea than waiting. For all we know if that had happened maybe there would be a war still raging between Germany and whoever the country who attacked them was, the country that attacked them would have been seen as immoral and the Germans would see them as opressors. Right now it's perfectly understood that the defenders were just defending, had someone attacked them first it would be much mreo complicated. There's nothing to say that it wouldn'tr just be sacrificign one war for another. I mean we can say this about anyone. Which side is the one who should be destroyed? They both claim the other will destroy them if they don't do it first, and the same way you suggest we prevent a war is already a war in itself. The same number of people are involved on both sides, they both put eachother in danger, it's not the same situation. If Israel destroys Palestine milliosn fo people die, if Palestine destroys Israel millionsd of people die.. whats the difference? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cvxn replied on Tue Sep 12, 2006 @ 2:37pm |
| Coolness: 178705 | ***No! Let's kill all babies! You know, since it's pretty much guarranteed that some of them will become genocidal dictators, right?***
I like that idea. I don't know why. ^___^ |
| I'm feeling dead, but dreaming right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Haha replied on Tue Sep 12, 2006 @ 2:51pm |
| Coolness: 40595 | There's no better baby food than baby food. You know. Baby roast, baby loaf, baby ribs.
I want my baby back baby back baby back ribs! |
| I'm feeling rlim shaikorthic right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cvxn replied on Wed Sep 13, 2006 @ 8:04am |
| Coolness: 178705 | L'autre jour je voulais faire un méchoui.
Tsé, imagine un bébé rôti qui tourne sur une broche...  |
| I'm feeling dead, but dreaming right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Wed Sep 13, 2006 @ 1:12pm |
| Coolness: 201285 | Hitler was in power for a long time before WW2 started, there were many chances to at least stand up to his xenephobic and threatening gestures toward the rest of Europe.
But Saddam was never much of a threat. The whole Iraw invasion was a bunch of BS. |
'War On Terror' Loses Clear Direction
| Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
