[Index] [About] [Participants] [Forum] [Vote] [Letters] [Disclaimer] [Archive]

War: The Warrior and the Saviour

A War On Terrorism or on Commonsense?

The date of September 11th 2001 will be engraved on the minds of many and in the history books for centuries to come. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the United States, according to many, have hailed a new world order.

Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorist network were immediately blamed for the suicide attacks in New York and Washington. Not long after the attacks the tough talk began, led by President George W. Bush’s address to the American people. He said, while describing America’s disbelief: “Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror…terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.” Bush suggested that America is the “brightest beacon for freedom,” and promised the deliverance of justice against those who backed the terrorists in their campaign against the US.

The hard-nosed rhetoric on both sides of the Atlantic proliferated throughout the press, with little opposition, and out of the mouths of leading politicians. The new Conservative Party leader offered no opposition to Bush and Blair’s talk of a war on terrorism. Only the Liberal Democrats spoke more moderately about what action should be taken. Questions were also asked about what a war on terrorism really meant. If we were to bomb Afghanistan, as Britain and America are now doing, shouldn’t we bomb each other for harbouring terrorists? NORAID after all provided funds for the IRA. Britain is known to have terrorists from other parts of the world on its own doorstep.

Blair also presented “the need” for identity cards and other measures against civil liberties, even though they could not by themselves stop any further attacks on terrorism. Both Bush and Blair gave the impression that it was business as usual, in order to defy their terrorists and the rogue states that may have backed them.

Instead, since September 11^th 2001 the reverse has happened with sporting events cancelled; next year’s World Cup is threatened because its insurers have pulled out fearing that the costs and the risks could be too high; and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane, Australia was postponed at great expense. The world’s stock markets have at times also lacked confidence, as seen by the massive gains and losses on the Dow Jones and FTSE indices. The terrorists are to blame of course! Yet some of these events are within the West’s control.

Commonsense has indeed gone out of the window in order to satisfy an injured America. For examples, Taleban leaders appealed to the British and Americans in order to avoid military action against Afghanistan. They said that they would hand over Osama bin Laden, America’s number one suspect because of his renowned and ironic hatred of the United States, if satisfactory evidence were provided.

This would need to equate to proof beyond doubt that Bin Laden’s organisation was behind the attacks. Tony Blair, after recalling parliament for an emergency session to discuss the crisis around the end of September and beginning of October, produced such proof. Yet much of the evidence was dismissed by some of the media as being circumstantial, and others said that it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. The Taleban would not recognise anything but Islamic law anyway.

Former MI5 intelligence officer David Shayler, whose opinion was backed by an expert on Afghanistan, warned before American and British bombing raids began that such a campaign could prove long and futile. Imran Kahn, Pakistani political leader and former Pakistan cricketer, said that any such action against the Taleban could also present a catalyst for civil war in his own country. That hasn’t quite happened yet. There have been riots and protests though, and almost throughout the Muslim world against the British and American actions in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden to the supporters of the Taleban is not seen as a pariah but a hero in their cause against American foreign policy.

The Palestinian Question causes a great part of their anti-American vehemence. Although it was suggested on the Jonathan Dimbleby show that this problem is being used as an excuse by many within the Muslim and Arab world. In spite of an anti-war demonstrations in London, which were led by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), and others across the world Robin Cook insisted on BBC 1’s The War Report that only a minority opposed the British and American response to the events of September 11th; particularly amongst Muslims.

Yet many feel that justice is not served by waging war, which some opponents of the campaign say represents an exchange of terror for even more terror. The Allies present the bombardment of Afghanistan as the only way to secure peace and to rid Afghanistan of the Taleban’s “evil” rule. This could be down to the US senate’s refusal to acknowledge the International Criminal Court.

What is a terrorist? That is one of the key problems. One man’s terrorist is another’s hero, and the term doesn’t have a clear definition in law. That doesn’t mean that action shouldn’t be taken against it wherever it raises its ugly head. In the case of the campaign against Afghanistan though, Imran Kahn said that there are too many “grey areas.”

The current crisis can’t be solved by bombing alone, and pose the threat of a wider conflict, even though Robin Cook - the leader of the House of Commons and former foreign secretary– denies speculation that the Allies are not intending to widen the conflict by striking out at other states that are said to “harbour terrorism.”

Americans during the last week have been struck by the fear of reprisals. The media appear to have been targeted, and one man died after being infected by anthrax in Florida. At least four other employees of American Media Inc were reported to have anthrax, and were immediately given antibiotics. Another incident occurred in New York, sparking a scare across America and a rush to buy antibiotics from pharmacies.

In his weekly radio address President George W. Bush said: “I understand that many Americans are feeling uneasy, but all Americans should be assured: we are taking strong precautions, we are vigilant, we are determined, the country is alert.” He has also stressed: “The best defence against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists - that work continues.”

The threat of chemical and biological warfare being used by Osama bin Laden’s network has been rejected by experts as being unlikely, The cases of anthrax in America has prompted the security services and authorities on both sides of the Atlantic to begin preparations for such an attack though. Yet the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the US has said that there is no proof that the anthrax cases are linked to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.

Instead they feel it is the work of a Unabomber, because of the way the victims became infected by touching an item of mail infused with the bacteria. It was however suggested that one of the terrorist, who may have flown one of the hijacked airliners into the World Trade Centres twin towers, might have contracted a form of skin anthrax.

Tony Blair has continued to try to present himself as a Churchillian statesmen, and in a speech has used the current conflict as a means of outlining his own vision of what has been dubbed “a new world order,” even though little has really changed.

With regard to post-Taleban Afghanistan he said: "If the Taleban regime changes, we will work to make sure its successor is one that is broad-based, that unites all ethnic groups and that offers some way out of the miserable poverty that is their present existence." Yet not even the Northern Alliance, who are fighting a long and bloody civil war against the Taleban are seen as a suitable alternative. The international coalition itself is also not that strong, so some commentators argue.

The Prime Minister also said: “Today humankind has the science and technology to destroy itself r to provide prosperity for all. Yet science can't make that choice for us. Only the moral power of the world acting as a community can - by the strengths of our endeavour we achieve more together than we can alone. For those people who lost their lives on 11^th September and those that mourn them, now is the time for strength to build that community. Let that be their memorial.”

Great Mr. Blair! We all want peace but this current conflict is not going to create your kind of Utopia, and if Bin Laden is killed another terrorist will take his place. This war may not be against the Muslim and Arab world, but no British government in recent times has even begun a similar campaign in Northern Ireland. This war is more likely to have a more serious cause and effect upon the justifications of those extremists who seek to dismiss the democratic process. In this futile war, which began with the hijackers’ suicide attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there will be more than 6,000 dead to remember.

That attack was not Pearl Harbor (which wasn’t part of the United States when the Japanese attacked the Pacific fleet during the 1940s). Alternative, non-military, means of tackling the scourge of terrorism do not amount to an act of 1930’s terrorism. As I argued on a previous edition of the Jonathan Dimbleby programme, this conflict is playing into the hands of those who planned and executed the attacks on Britain’s closest ally.

The US and British reaction, in spite of the slow build up to the bombing raids and the construction of an international coalition against terrorism, appears to lack commonsense. It is replaced by self-fulfilling propaganda and the demonstration of an injured superpower’s military hardware.

Extremists are always happy to die for their cause, and many Muslim hardliners would be all too pleased to become martyrs for their cause against America. As many Muslims have said, these people are not true Muslims because they do not abide by the fundamentals of their religion. It’s time to support American but not with military strikes on such a shattered country as Afghanistan, a country that urgently needs humanitarian aid.

Justice is best served through courts and not by war. A war on terrorism can be conducted, yet this doesn’t mean that more blood need be shed through futile, Ramboesque military action. It would therefore be great to see more American students out protesting against their government’s actions like so many did over Vietnam.

Graham Jarvis MA 14^th October 2001

IDS: Silence is Golden

[About EuroPolls]  [Index] [Participants] [EMU Forum] 
[EMU Vote] [Letters] [Legal Disclaimer] [Archive]