4 of 62

Write now Article Tools

In order to win the war against Al Qaeda, the US must have clearly defined military missions and clearly defined plans to achieve them.

A clearly defined enemy is also a requirement for winning the war, which is why I have substituted the term "War on Al Qaeda" for the meaningless, more politically acceptable "War on Terror". Terror is a tactic and a natural byproduct of all forms of violence. War in all its forms creates and promotes terror. If a soldier sees his best friend blown up in battle, he will, quite naturally, experience terror. The only way to win a war against an emotional state is to eliminate violence altogether and at our current rate of perfecting civilization, it is reasonable to assume that won't be happening soon.

If we restrict our definition of Al Qaeda to those individuals directly and indirectly responsible for the attacks on the twin towers on 9/11, then we are speaking about a group of approximately 1200 hard core jihadists hiding out in Zaweristan, in the mountainous region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Broadening the definition to include radical islamists throughout the world puts us in conflict with dozens of barefoot thugs all over the world, including Chechan rebels in the former Soviet Union and Abu Sayef separatists in the Phillipines. It also places us squarely in the middle of every secular/religious spat throughout southeast Asia. Do we really want the US Military fighting alongside the Russian miliary against Chechan separatists in southern Russia or patrolling the jungles of the Phillipines searching for Islamist guerillas who have a grievance against their government? Once you peel away the religious dogma, most of these rebel groups seek autonomy and resolution to a whole host of local issues and have no intention of attacking the United States. Is it a wise use of US treasure and blood to help resolve these regional disputes?

I submit that it is not. Getting bogged down in regional disputes in the name of a "World War on Terror" is usually justified as self defense against a worldwide effort to destroy the Western World. But that argument is built on the false premise of a radical islamist unity that doesn't exist. The objectives of the Abu Sayef have nothing to do with the objectives of the Chechan rebels and are entirely provincial. Mixing the two and creating a worldwide conspiracy puts us in the unenviable position of scurrying into a rat maze of regional politics, accusations of imperialism and a hopeless

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Winning the war against terrorism?
We want to hear your view. Write now!