Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFrom Mumbai to Washington: Now Is the Time to Renounce the War on Terror
Right now, while the horror of the attacks in Mumbai is reverberating around the world and tensions between India and Pakistan are mounting, there is a crucial move that President-elect Obama could make to chart a positive course forward. Obama should renounce the "war on terror."
Think about it: since the weird semantic banner was first unfurled, the number and ferocity of terrorist attacks has only increased. Mumbai is just the latest battle-front. And in the seven years since George Bush put the world on notice with his "you're either with us or with the terrorists" declaration, the US has actually managed to fuel support for groups that use terrorism. That's because the "war on terror" has led millions of people to conclude that the US is an even greater threat to their safety and freedom than Al Qaeda and other violent fringe groups.
And who can blame them? After all, George Bush and Dick Cheney literally declared the whole world to be their battlefield—and forever. Under the banner of the "war on terror," the US has overthrown a sovereign, if nasty, government (Iraq), trampled the UN Charter (the 2003 invasion), tortured prisoners ("enhanced interrogation techniques" to quote the Bush Administration and the Nazis), openly armed and funded death squads (the "Salvador Option"), and lowered the bar on governments' accountability to human rights standards and civil liberties worldwide.
Now, the Indian government is poised to go down the same road. Leaders of India's main opposition party, the Hindu-nationalist BJP, are demanding that their government act like the US did after 9-11. They see no reason that India shouldn't avail itself of the same strong-arm tactics that the Bush Administration has enjoyed—and legitimized.
Here's the reason: terrorist attacks are not acts of war to be responded to in kind, but crimes against humanity. As crimes, they should be investigated and the perpetrators tried and prosecuted. We have the body of international laws and institutions needed to pursue genuine justice in the wake of terrorist attacks. Let's use them. And let's dust off the tradition of peaceful cooperation between governments (we're going to need it anyway, to deal with the global recession and climate change).
The lessons of the past seven years are that there is no military solution to terrorism; that a militarized response only feeds the same constellation of forces that produce support for terrorism; that a war on terror enhances the power of extremists on both sides and shuts down the space for dialogue, diplomacy and decency.
That's the message we need to deliver loud and clear to President-elect Obama and his new foreign policy team. We may not be able to undo all of the damage inflicted by the Bush Administration, but we can demand a new direction, starting with a forceful human-rights based response to the atrocities in Mumbai.
Many people in India and Pakistan are calling for just such a response from their governments. Those of us in the US should demand no less of the incoming administration. The best thing President-elect Obama could do to chart a new and improved US foreign policy is to renounce the "war on terror."
49 Comments so far
Show AllRight on!
I remember a few months ago I went to a comedy club in Tampa and the comedian asked for a topic and I raised my hand and said, "Terrorism" ..... his first comment was.. "Sugar kills more people than Terrorism!"
I have someplace a bar graph from a few years ago showing what people die from every year. Heart disease, I believe, topped the list, followed by other major diseases and car accidents and so forth. Even in 2001, deaths by terrorist activity were way down at the bottom, barely visible at all alongside washing machine injuries and choking on chicken bones, Declaring war on worn brake shoes makes more sense than the massive and futile mobilization against "terror" which is after all nothing but the predictable response of a third world lunatic fringe to conditions we ourselves have allowed to exist - economic disparity and imperial arrogance.
if obama changed the war on terror to a war on poverty and hunger around the world that would begin to defuse the anger and motivations which drive the suicide bombers and 'terrorists.' american foreign intervention has fueled the hate. guns or butter? we drop food on Khost instead of Hellfires, we begin to change our world for the better.
may we find common ground. it is possible for all but the 1% who will never be with us or any hungry people. the 1% are the enemy. not poor Arabs.
Your comment is spot on... Amercia is experienceing the blowbaclk for half a century of meddling, murdering, and manipulating for greedy business interests. People that are secure in their lives have no need nor desire to destroy.
Yifat Susskind:' Many people in India and Pakistan are calling for just such a response from their governments."
I've no idea if 'people in Pakistan are calling for just.." but let me tell you many people in India aren't exactly proposing both sides hug ,kiss and make up, and smoke the peace pipe.
Just last evening ,there were a spate of rallies ( involving at the very least half a million in total) in all major Indian cities ,that the national media covered on a minute to minute basis. The mood was far from sombre -in fact the vast crowds gathered clearly had had enough . People were seething with anger - not only at the perpetrators and their patrons - but more ominously at India's entire political class . Who've not only kept letting the people down - while cynically milking such events for political gain .( All the while sneering publicly and privately at common folk.) But who continue to persist tightening their own security - while doing nothing to beef up national security .
In fact right now , across the board , Indian politicians have emerged as the most loathed lot ever . And ,had it not been for the ring of highly trained commandos protecting them ,many an Indian politician would already have been set upon and lynched by members of an outraged populace.
Despite what one or two have suggested here ,solving the Kashmir problem will not put a stop to such outrages. Events have moved way beyond it i.e. the Kashmir issue.
Had Mr. Susskind been more perceptive ( drawing on recent historical precedent ) -or more pragmatic - he wouldn't be coming up with such fanciful , pie-in-the-sky notions. Is he suggesting that the Indian people should continue to turn the other cheek . If so let him ,and his own ,lead the way by practising what they ,so nobly, preach.
I was born in Pakistan, but currently reside in USA. I still visit Pakistan almost every year or so. I read this article by Mr. Susskind, and wanted to share my thoughts: For a long time, I too believed, that terror problem could be solved by methods as outlined by the author. But lately I have been thinking differently. Mr. Susskind does not understand the nature of this growing terror problem, its real genesis, and the extent of its spread in the region - specially in Pakistan. I am a peace loving liberal kind, but I have come to realize that Bush and company had correctly diagnosed the problem of terror, but they proved too incompetent to deal with this problem, and to make the matter worse invaded a wrong country. I wish people could listen to the speeches of the leaders of these Islamic militant organizations, like Lashkar e Tyba etc,; I can assure you, they will change their minds. Mr. Susskind does not really understand the nature of the terror problem world is facing, otherwise he would not have written a fluff like that. I, for a long time, believed that education will be the answer to this problem, but now I think that it is an emergency and these dangerous people have to be eliminated asap, by whatever means; we do not have a lot of time.
Ahmed
How do you eliminate a ghost?
bin Laden wanted his enemies to make War on him and his plan was to bankrupt the USA in trying to win a war on terrorism.
We are playing his game according to his rules.... and we lost.
War =Terror.
So what does Lashkar e Tyba (etc) have to say that changed your views re: prosecution of War of Terror?
It is not 'fanciful, pie-in-the-sky' notions. It is the only thing that works, in the long term.
The outrage is understandable, but when you as an individual, are angry, they will also always advise you: first count to ten. The same applies to international relations.
If you allow your rage to control you, you can kill a few Pakistanis in return, they will kill a few Indians in return, you throw a nuclear bomb somewhere and they do the same. What will you gain from this ? Somebody has to start with turning the other cheek, counting to ten and start investigating the crime instead of screaming for revenge. It is just the most pragmatic thing to do if you want to solve things.
It is not called for to 'smoke the peace pipe'. What Mr. Susskind is suggesting is that the crime should be investigated and that international collaboration would be helpful in this way. And yes, I would even argue to investigate the ISI in Pakistan; their role in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 also still has not been investigated properly.
Yes, and Atta needing security clearance for him to get those flying lessons at those CIA/Drug connected airports down here in Florida too.
If you'd read what I'd written , you'd see that at no point did I suggest nuking the Pakistanis etc. My point ,very simply, was ,that people in India are fed up to the teeth with their politicians.And their ire is directed against their entire political class.
That said , you make the basic assumption that this turning the other cheek ( and in all probability ) patiently and stoically enduring further outrages ,over the long run 'is the only thing that works'.
Assuming you are perfectly right ,aren't you expecting a level of forbearance from the Indian people far in excess of what might reasonably be expected from other nations and peoples -faced with similar outrages.
Should another terrorist outrage take place on US soil ,would you ,or anyone else for that matter ,dare to urge an American to show restraint , 'counting to ten' ,turning the other cheek etc.
Hardly - can't see too many venturing to bell that particularly bristling cat.
mephitis
Perhaps by calling it something other than a "war" some progress might be made in the pursuit of justice. I just don't get why every last bit of American foreign policy, culture, and individual behavior must be framed as a "battle," a "war," a "crusade," when all these words connote destruction and death, murder, maiming, and victory of one ideology over another. American culture is obsessed with violence to the absurd extent that our government and most citizens can't even articulate any type of response to much of anything without resorting to words that imply mayhem and violence. So instead of looking for causes for such desperation, governments instead appoint scapegoats, and deceive all the rest by perpetuating the system that is the real cause and purveyor of terror.
When justice is what is so desperately needed, the U.S., Israel, and now, apparently, India, instead resort to blanket threats against anyone or anything not "with us" - we'll just blow away anyone for any reason. Of course the U. S. has fomented terrorism - that's exactly what government and corporations want: murder and mayhem to disguise the perpetuation of the criminality of authoritarianism and corporate imperialism. If Americans had any brains, we'd be aligning with the so-called terrorists to end corporate and military rule and provide for humanitarian needs and diplomatic resolutions. Certainly, the "rule of law" means nothing to the idiots and charlatans running the U. S. government, who instead condone the massive law-breaking and complete moral breakdown of one criminal administration after another. Every single member of Congress has blood on his hands for the Mumbai incident, just as they have for all U. S.-promoted terrorism since 1776.
The "war on terror," as amply illustrated over the past 230 years or so, is a poorly disguised charade for the U. S. government and its real terrorist proxies (e.g., Israel) to perpetrate terror to defend the greed and avarice of its corporate underwriters. If the U. S. had pursued the aircraft attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 as a crime, not only would have justice been served, but we might have learned who was actually responsible -- but I suppose that failure serves to prove the point about who was really behind such heinous acts of cowardice and malice. Face reality: terrorism is a tool that serves the purposes of government and capitalism, diverting our attention from the true crimes we support every day with our petty and privileged lifestyles. We're all supporting global class warfare against the less privileged, and in doing so, we are worthy targets for extraction of justice. The pity is, those most deserving of justice are those who will continue to smugly and salaciously watch as the workers, the peasants, the underprivileged and impoverished continue to kill one another.
The root cause is terrorism in this; the expectation that it will be effectual. The goal of the terrorist is to pressure or blackmail governments into changing their policies in such a way as to be more in line with the terrorists wishes. When governments succumb, terrorism wins. Terrorism is a tactic or technique which is chosen b/c it is expected to pay off. Throughout the world there are countless frustrated nutjobs on the fringe who'd LOVE to blow up a building if it meant getting what they wanted. The only way to confront terrorism is to spite it, to show that anyone who uses these tactics as confined their cause to the rubbish heap.
I don't think renouncing the "War on Terror" is a good idea at this point, considering how much of the world might interpret it. Immediately following these terrible Mumbai attacks, it would look like America is surrendering to the Muslim extremists. These extremist groups would declare "victory" if the "War on Terror" was renounced. They already believe they single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Union, as if they didn't receive a lot of outside help. It's not like I agree with the "War on Terror"; if anything it has been a miserable failure, and seems to be breeding more terrorism.
We do need a drastic change in strategy and direction. Whatever it is called isn't particularly important. We could maintain the "War on Terror", and start behaving differently or Obama could declare the "War on Terror" over and behave similarly enough to Bush and it wouldn't make a difference.
I support withdrawing from Iraq in a realistic manner, I do not support going to war with Iran or Pakistan, and we should withdraw from Afghanistan at some point in the future. Fighting terrorism generally calls for better policing, not more war. The less governments overreact to terrorist attacks, the better. Terrorists love the idea of starting wars between countries, since it is perfect for finding new recruits.
We need to become energy independent. Saudi Arabia helps breed terrorists through it's funding of Wahabist groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries.
America itself breeds a great deal of terrorism. Why are you pinning it all on the Saudis? It was America who recruited the Mujahedin of Afghanistan in order to deliver to the USSR its "own Vietnam." You mention that "they" brought down the Soviet Union with little help, but this is false. They had US backing and most notably, stinger missiles. What America is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria should rightly be called terrorism! Same with what Israel is doing in Palestine.
Also, the best way to fight terrorism is to give people a proper avenue for having their grievances addressed. Palestine has had international law on its side for 41 years, but still no justice. If there is no justice and the law of the jungle prevails, people feel they have no other options.
India should let the Kashmiris decide their own fate in Kashmir. The UN awarded them a right to vote and determine their own future, and India is denying that right. Kashmir belongs to KASHMIRIS, not Indians or Pakistanis. Let international law work, and people won't have to use terrorism out of desperation! Indian violence will only breed more of the same, just as American and Israeli violence has done and continue to do!
'Also, the best way to fight terrorism is to give people a proper avenue for having their grievances addressed. Palestine has had international law on its side for 41 years, but still no justice. If there is no justice and the law of the jungle prevails, people feel they have no other options.'
That's what the democratic theory was supposed to do. Extremist groups could run for power in elections, however once they won they had to use diplomacy the same as everyone else. Hamas made a diplomatic error by de-facto pulling out of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Hamas as failed its people miserably. Democracy is the ultimate put up or shut up: be a viable player or an extremist coot; your responsbility to your people means you can't be both.
"It was America who recruited the Mujahedin of Afghanistan in order to deliver to the USSR its "own Vietnam." "
Odd you would say that, as though the USSR had nothing to do with it even though they had invaded Afghanistan.
Paul Siemering
You nailed it Yifat. great writing. "war on terror" is so over.
Baby burning born agains
Baby burning born agains
Shameless blameless nameless
Have a new creed for you
Called overcome the ‘evil doers’
Called ‘the war on terror’
Called ‘we bring you freedom.’.
Baby burning born agains
Shameless blameless nameless
Have a new creed for you
Resisting ‘evil doers’ by
Baby burning born agains who
Reduce their homes to rubble.
Contract baby burning friendly friends
who rebuild with infidel bread at triple cost plus.
You pay with your youth.
You pay with your children.
You pay with your loved ones.
You pay with your oil.
The baby burning born agains call it the cost of freedom.
The baby burning born agains
Shameless blameless nameless
Have a new creed for you.
Called overcome the ‘evil doers’
Called ‘the war on terror’
Called ‘we bring you freedom.’.
One hundred and forty four thousand..
Ain’t that number to high
for the blameless ones
the baby burning born agains
Shameless blameless nameless
who will to meet their maker.
The baby burning born agains
Shameless blameless nameless
Have a new creed for you.
Don't quit your day job pal, that was a real turkey!
.As was that post of yours....unnecessary to say the least.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The terrorist around the world who are angry or outraged over the gross meddling of countries like the US and the unjust actions taken by countries at the expense of others and who have no other way of expressing or avenging themselves, believe they are justified in what they do.
When we over react as we have done, we play right into their scheme. In the seven years that we have been waging "war" on terrorism, we have greatly decreased out military strength, spent or committed over a trillion dollars, weakened our economy, polarized our people, and strengthened their movement. So -- who is winning?
Forget "Manners", Mind Your DEMOCRACY. . .
http://flickr.com/photos/ekai/2554437610/
"Now Is the Time to Renounce the War on Terror"
I bet the terrorist would love that.
Shouldn't it be: "Now is the time to renounce terrorism".
The world needs to unite in order to defeat the threat posed by Al Qaeda.
The concept of a War of Terror isn't bad, it was how Bush carried it out that was bad.
"One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful."
Sun Tzu. Not one of GWB's generals.
YES, now is the time to renounce that ugly form of terrorism called WAR. America's terrorism should be renounced immediately, right along with all other forms of terrorism. The murder of innocent people is terrorism, regardless of who is doing the killing and for what justification. America state terrorism has killed more people then bin Ladin and his ilk could ever manage in their wildest dreams!
"War of Terror"--you're getting closer.
Oops. Okay you got me.
Typo: War ON Terror. ON.
War = Terror
It is even on my guitar.
do you actually know what a concept is?
SEEKING A WIN-WIN SOLUTION, AFTER THE MUMBAI CARNAGE
First shocked, then numbed, then seething with anger... that is the very understandable state of public opinion in India, after the dastardly terrorist attacks in Mumbai in late November, 2008.
Most analysts point to the miserable set of options India has at this stage. With most options, India is likely to lose (even if it achieves some questionable short run gains), the region is likely to lose, the peace-loving world is likely to lose... and the terrorists win.
All these options are similar to the options in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where there is almost no option where peace-loving Israelis and peace-loving Palestinians both win.... India would make a horrible mistake if it goes down such an Israel-Palestine style dead-end and endless conflict path, as many in India are demanding right now.
But this no-win option is so only if the problem is framed as an India problem, or an India-Pakistan problem, or a regional problem.
The picture changes as soon as the problem is reframed as a global problem: a highly localized source of terror, in the Pakistan-Afghan border region and also in other locations inside Pakistan, and widely dispersed global targets and victims of terror -- and yes, as Yifat Susskind puts it, of the crimes of terror.
This reframing must be done... and fast... and by the Obama team. Let us hope Condoleeza Rice succeeds in her final diplomatic move in South Asia, but the real reframing has to be done by the incoming team, and not the discredited departing team.
Obama, America, the West need to realize that this Mumbai situation is very different than London or Madrid or Bali bombings. The sources of terror in those cases were inside those countries, even if inspired by terror sources in the Afghan-Pakistan region. In case of Mumbai, the terror source is foreign and identifiable... very similar to 9/11. But the response to 9/11 has not been one that solves the problem!
In the 9/11 case, America acted violently against the terror perpetrators, with generally great support from all global quarters... but then America botched the Afghan war, mainly by creating the hugely mistaken war in Iraq. If India reacts in any manner similar to America's, it is likely to create as big a mess, if not a bigger one.
Things change, however, if USA leads and involves India, Europe, Russia, China, Australia, the Gulf states that also face threats of terror, and many others. This would not be a sham "coalition of the willing" against a false enemy -- it would be a global compact against a very real but very shadowy terrorism enclave who has inflicted harm very widely and cruelly.
Such a global compact can bring all options into play -- diplomacy, media, popular appeals, and as a last resort a range of coercive force-using options. Such a global compact can rid the world of the scourge of terrorism, as Obama promises and hopes to do.
But the need to act is fast, and now... yes, the Obama team does not get in the field till January 21, 2009, but it needs to signal loudly and clearly -- especially to a wounded and very angry India -- that the global compact to fight the scourge of terror will be created from the day the new team takes office.
Nik Dholakia
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI (USA)
Jim Glover is correct. The focus for the new Obama administration should be upon renouncing the Bush doctrine of preemptive/preventative war, and its corallary notions that certain folks denominated evil doing "enemy combatants" fall outside the scope of established international laws like the Geneva Conventions, or that targeted assassinations are okay so long as the government-sponsored murders are carried out by spies, special forces, or private contractor hit squads.
If we then want to press on with a semantic dialogue about the propriety of waging a "war" on terror, or a war on drugs, or crime, or poverty, or AIDS, or whatever, then so be it.
The important distinction to be drawn is that no matter what hyperbole the politicians and opinion-shaping pundits resort to, civilized nations simply do not wage such psuedo-wars by using their military forces or paramilitary police agencies to bomb crack houses, zap street corner dope dealers with Hellfire missles fired from drones, waterboard suspected Mafiosa wannabes, stage mass arrest sweeps of persons having no visible means of support, or detain and imprison people in military brigs indefinitely under quarantine because they are believed likely to have been exposed to a contagious disease.
Yes, words matter.
But in my opinion, controlling the global spread of mindless militarism and totalitarian police state tactics long recognized as reprehensible matters more, and it is likely to be more effective.
Bill from Saginaw
Americas Defense Meltdown – Full Text
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/AmericasDefenseMeltdownFullText.pdf
Every time I google 'US wealth distribution' the richest 1% gets richer. Try it! then click on 'the L shaped curve'.
You can't be outraged if you don't understand what is going on.
America must police itself. The world must know that we are watching ourselves. If doing business in a volatile area, American corporations must make double sure that the people of the area are benefitting in seeable ways that have absolutely nothing to do with the spread of our own culture. Community centers, educational facilities, food banks, etc. Otherwise, the American presence will be seen as pillage. We must make the world better if we are to partake in its resources. Instead, corporations, along with the aid of the government, display their American "cleverness" wherever they go. All's fair in capitalism, right? Wrong. Boom!
Obama is not going to go that far to renounce war on terror.... only a few on the left would get it.
But his first step which could lead to normal international police action to fight terror would be to over turn the Bush Doctrine and simply recognize the World Court. That is something the whole world would instantly understand.
Upon this topic I have raved and sadly do so, again.
The 'war on terror' was originally the war against those responsible for 9-11, started by an execrable bit of legislation numbered Public Law 107-40, passed by a supine and scared Congress.
Since the actual attackers all suicided, the war, needing an enemy, obviously had to be fought against those supporting the attackers. Bush announced that al-Qaeda was the enemy and that the Taliban would be treated the same way.
And what is our war goal, besides revenge? According to Congress, 'preventing future terrorism' by the groups or persons deemed as enemies.
This war against the supporters of the attackers of 9-11 was re-named and re-packaged by Bush and his evil minions as the 'War on Terror' into a more appealing consumer product for America (the title is much simpler and vaguer and thus more popular with hoi polloi).
This war is fought in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and eventually everywhere since it's a global issue. Future terrorism must be prevented, so the war will go on forever until (and I cannot repeat this phrase often enough) future terrorism by al-Qaeda and the Taliban is prevented.
Mr. Obama wants to leave 'some' troops in Iraq and also send more troops to Afghanistan in order to prevent future terrorism. The 4th fleet has been re-established in the Caribbean, a new AFRICOM military command has been started, and an active Army unit is stationed inside the Homeland itself. The military is looking for future terrorism everywhere on Earth and will aggressively prevent it when they think they've found something, like they just did in Syria.
Mr. Obama is not going to renounce the 'war on terror'.
He is trying to win it, even though victory is unattainable.
.The attack on 9/11 served to position Bush as a "war time President" and gave he and his execrable Vice President the opportunity to strengthen the Executive Branch of government beyond the vision of the Founders of this nation.
We now await the opportunity for the next President to undo that which Bush/Cheney wrought. Will he?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Guns (the "global war on terror", the Iraq and Afghan wars, and rumors of more wars in Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc., thereby requiring a bigger US military) or butter (social programs, especially Social Security and Medicare); which is it going to be, America? You can't do both ---not without risking national bankruptcy!
War on Terror really a war on Muslims,Arabs.
War to get oil, war to protect Western interests....
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
The 'War on Terror" is a war on all of us.
Bush is responsible for the Mumbai attacks.
Not only that, the attackers are totally innocent.
And why should the US be involved in telling India and Pakistan what to do? Let them decide their own fate. If they decide to knock each other out, so be it. Let them teach themselves lessons. We can keep our butts out of their affairs already. The US has its own problems such as cleaning up that 10 trillion deficit. Europe also needs to mind its own business especially since they caused this disaster by dividing up lands in Africa and Asia. And for crying out loud, stop using the oxymoron "War on Terror". It never existed, never does, and never will. War creates terror, PERIOD !
As they used to say in my day, "Right on!" What the United States needs is a little creative isolationism. Yes, you want to prevent India and Pakistan from starting a pissing contest that could easily and quickly escalate, with the aid of the unexpected, into nuclear war. Beyond that, there is nothing the USA can do about the history of these two nations or their cultures. They have to settle their problems themselves, if they want to.
I find it pathetically ironic the US would give those two nations plenty of WMDs and yet expect them to make "peace". Weird indeed !
There never was a "War on Terror". The attack of September 11th was viewed by the Republicans as an "entrepreneurial opportunity" to get the corner on American politics into the distant future but, more importantly, to get filthy, bleeping rich in the process.
I agree. You cannot have a war on terror anymore than you can have a war on hate or a war on evil. This is an oxymoron put out by morons and believed by morons! No doubt that 911 was, in my view, an inside job and whether you agree with me or not, there is one thing you cannot deny: WE CANNOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS GOVERNMENT TELLS US!
Spot on !