Has the corner been turned in the war against terror?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

[]
Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the May 05, 2003 edition

Corner-Turning on Terror

The end of summer will mark two years since the Sept. 11 attacks. The Bush administration, despite the capture of many Al Qaeda leaders and the ouster of regimes in Afghanistan and then Iraq, paints the campaign against terrorism as a struggle with no end in sight. Perhaps it is.
Yet it's worth asking, even at the risk of simply predicting the future by projecting the past into it, if recent events in the anti-terror campaign signal a tipping point.
Only future historians can spot that Battle-of-Midway moment that will mark the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda. But Americans in the present can also watch for those moments when, as Aristotle wrote in the Poetics, "things come about contrary to expectation but because of one another."
Here are a few events in the past week alone that, when added to all else in the war on terrorism, might indicate a cascade of victories to come:
• After removing Iraq's threat to its neighbors, the US announced it will remove troops from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, thus ending a key irritant that motivates Al Qaeda.
• Syria, under US pressure, says it will close the offices of three terrorist groups in Damascus.
• The Israel-Palestinian peace process has resumed after Yasser Arafat was forced to relinquish some power and President Bush released a "road map" for a diplomatic solution to yet another problem that drives Al Qaeda.
• Pakistan, a breeding ground for many terrorists, appears to have curbed the flow of militants into Indian-held Kashmir enough to allow India to announce it will resume full diplomatic relations.
Not bad for one week. And proof that it pays to stand up to terrorists and their sponsors fearlessly. Terror, after all, relies on fear to persist. Erode that fear with victories, and terror starts to evaporate quickly.

Have we turned the corner on terror or is this just the calm before the storm? What is your opinion?
If you believe that the corner has been turned can it be attributed to the strong stance that Bush has taken . Including the "war" in Iraq?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,102 • Replies: 80

No top replies

when you talk about the 'war on terrorism' you have to understand that one mans terrorist is another one's freedom fighter...and that while such a freedom fighter has a cause to fight for then 'terrorism' cannot be beaten. also remember that the 'strong stance' that bush has taken towards iraq has arguably nothing to do with terrorism, especially since no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found(and that was supposedly the idea of invading). it is, in fact, debatable that the actions against iraq, while being morally correct in the light of the state of the regime, could actually be classified as a terrorist action: politically motivated violence and all that shite....

terrorism is not a definate, watertight description of any violent or fear-instilling action. it cannot be beaten and it cannot be viewed from one side only. the war against terrorism is not at an end.

0 Replies

Trix - I define "terrorism" as any violent act specifically targeted against innocent civilians. Questions of the legitimacy of the person's cause go out the window when innocent civilians are targeted.

0 Replies

How do you determine innocence?

e.g. Isreal targets swaths of Palestinians in their crackdowns because it's hard to determine which civilians are wiulling to blow them up.

The Allied bombing of civilians is justified by some saying the civilians were not innocent.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justified by some saying that the cities were military installations.

All examples I provide have some justifications that i consider valid, but they would be hard to define under your criteria.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

How do you determine innocence?

I don't. I assume that all civilians are innocent and not appropriate military targets. The examples you offer might be classified as "war crimes", not as "terrorism". (At least as I define these things.)

0 Replies

To "turn the corner" would imply that there is a corner to be turned around and that the edges of this entity called "terrorism" can be defined. I don't think we have those edges defined yet so...

0 Replies

trixabell

Quote:

when you talk about the 'war on terrorism' you have to understand that one mans terrorist is another one's freedom fighter...

By that reasoning there are no terrorists only freedom fighters. I guess that would make the people who flew the planes into the WTC freedom fighters. People who perform acts of terror whose only purpose is to kill and maim civilians and have no other purpose cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called freedom fighters. One must look at intent.

0 Replies

fishin'
I think the definition of terrorism is generally understood. Based on what the accepted or if you will generally accepted definition of terrorism in your opinion, have we turned the corner. Are we less likely or more likely to be hit by terrorists now than we were in the recent past?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

People who perform acts of terror whose only purpose is to kill and maim civilians and have no other purpose cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called freedom fighters. One must look at intent.

One must most assuredly NOT look at intent. The intent of the 9/11 hijackers is of no import. We need look only at their actions.

Our stance with all would-be "freedom-fighters" should?-no must?-be that terrorist action will avail them nothing; that we will never consider why they choose terrorism, but rather we will punish all acts of terrorism with an absolute resolve. If they want us to consider the "why" they must choose another path of action.

0 Replies

There are different ways of freedom fighting, and they must not be violent mandatory.
If we refer to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have to mention several moments in the past that would have prevented volence.
If in 1948 the Arab leaders accepted the UN-sponsored plan of division of British Palestine into two independent states, there would be no war and no refugees.
If in 1967 Egypt did not provoke the Six-Day War, the West Bank of Jordan and Gaza Strip would not be occupied by Israel. If in the same year Arab leaders agreed to sign peace treaty with Israel, and not the armistice only, then all these occupied territories would be returned to respectively, Egypt and Jordan, and then creation of the Palestinian State would depend on their good will (it is somewhat strange to demand such a will from Jews, while the fellow Arabs that ruled the mentioned territories for nineteen years in 1948-67 did literally nothing for self-determination of the Palestinians there).
If in 2000 Arafat has regarded proposals of Israeli PM Barak as a starting point for further negotiations and not as casus belli, then Palestinian independent state might have appeared in 3-5 years without any violence. He had serious reservations regarding the proposals mentioned, but controversies are to be solved by means of talks and not by triggering the terror war.
Therefore, there is an alternative to terror in this area of the world.
I do not say that Israeli behavior was perfect, but the problems could be, however, solved without resorting to homicide bombing.

0 Replies

Scrat
That still leaves us with the question what is considered terrorism.
I will ask when Israel goes into Gaza in retaliation for terrorist attack looking for and taking out the terrorists and in the action innocents get wounded and killed is that terrorism. There is no doubt some would say so and the same people would also call the terrorists freedom fighters.

0 Replies

It is not a terrorism, it is a police action performed by the army.

0 Replies

Streissd
I know your stance and I agree. However, there are some I am sure who would not.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

fishin'
I think the definition of terrorism is generally understood. Based on what the accepted or if you will generally accepted definition of terrorism in your opinion, have we turned the corner. Are we less likely or more likely to be hit by terrorists now than we were in the recent past?

Just to clarify, I have little problem with the definition of terrorism. My concerns with definition is with the label of "War on Terrorism". It seems to be being applied selectively (i.e we are going after some terrorist groups but not others..) so it leads me to believe that we haven't turned any major corners.

There will always be people who are dissatisfied with civilization as it exists and who will turn to violent means to attain their goals.

0 Replies

The "War on Terrorism" (tm) is nothing more than a slick marketing ploy for Bush's foreign policy.

Attacking Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on Sept. 11.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine including the anti-Israel "militants" is a third event that is only marginally related.

Come on! Is anyone *really* dumb enough to swallow Bush's line that devestating Iraq makes us any safer in the U.S? Does anyone think Bush can be fair enough to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the table?

The war on terrorism will be as effective the war on drugs.

I hope we can turn the corner in 2004.

0 Replies

Brown

Quote:

Attacking Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on Sept. 11

.
I agree but did it's outcome have any impact upon the incidence of future terrorism. Will the Arab nations cut short their financial aid to terrorists for fear of being attacked. i.e.. Syria and Iran?

Quote:

I hope we can turn the corner in 2004

.
What will happen in 2004 to cause the corner to turn. I am assuming you are reflecting a democratic victory. Will that be if it happens a magic bullet?

0 Replies

Changing regime in Iraq (even if Saddam was not directly or indirectly involved in the 09/11 attacks) sends a strong message to regimes that sponsor terror (and Saddam actually did, several terrorist organizations had headquarter in Baghdad, like this of Abu Abbas ?- not to be confused to Abu Mazen, whose real name is Mahmoud Abbas). It showed that none of the Third World leader may be sure in his impunity in case he supports anti-American militant activities.
Terror groups cannot exist and operate without being sponsored by certain governmental organizations, whatever they are: the non-existent since 1992 KGB, spiritual leadership of Iran or Syrian regime. If the governments of the potential terror sponsors realize that the U.S. administration really means war against terror and it is ready to act in the most painful ways against perpetrators, this may seriously change the overall situation with terrorism.

0 Replies

This "turning the corner" thing reminds me of the thousands of times I've heard different officials from different administrations talk about turning the corner in our war on drugs.

Not only have we not turned the corner on terrorism or drugs -- we haven't even left the middle of the block.

Trixabell put it correctly on the terrorism angle.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Scrat
That still leaves us with the question what is considered terrorism.
I will ask when Israel goes into Gaza in retaliation for terrorist attack looking for and taking out the terrorists and in the action innocents get wounded and killed is that terrorism. There is no doubt some would say so and the same people would also call the terrorists freedom fighters.

Forgive me some circular logic here...

When terrorists strike civilian targets, I do not think intent should be considered for the reasons given previously. However, if the very same people attacked a military target and unintended civilian casualties occurred, the waters would be murkier. That would probably not be terrorism, in my view.

The WTC towers were not a military target. That was terrorism.

The Pentagon was a military target. That was an act of war.

On the other hand... when the military of any country attacks a military target, and civilians?-who were not the target?-are killed, that is not terrorism. So my answer to your question above is "no".

Efforts to call governmental action "terrorism" are attempts to posit a moral equivalence between governments acting to thwart terrorists and the terrorists themselves. This is kind of like saying that the illness and its cure are morally equivalent if there is a risk that each might kill you.

0 Replies

Frank
Old friend as usual we disagree which in itself is no great problem. However, I would add that it would be more to the point if you labeled your response an opinion. That is unless you have become omnipotent since our last encounter.

0 Replies

Has the corner been turned in the war against terror?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know