14 of 62

Write now Article Tools

Page 6 of 6

2004). Provocative military interventions and military support should be considered in terms of the potential terrorist risk. This may not lead to the halting of such interventions, however it may highlight the need for multilateral support that combines military, police, humanitarian, and reconstruction aid.

What the Hell are We Doing?

Many are concerned that the current reaction by the West and the Coalition of the Willing are merely perpetuating and amplifying these policies. Thus the West's current response can be seen as largely been counterproductive. DEMOS argues the point on a domestic scale in the UK: "The government's response to terrorism is alienating the very communities it needs to engage, and that their growing sense of grievance, anger and injustice inadvertently legitimises the terrorists' aims, with or without their active consent." (DEMOS 2006, p.14) While others, such as Professor Douglas Kellner, argure the same point on an international scale: "[The West's military response] has hindered more intelligent and potentially successful efforts against terror networks, while quite possibly creating more terrorists and enemies of the United States." (Kellner 2002, p.2) Anger in the Muslim world over injustices suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, including civilian deaths, torture and a perceived war on islam' become a powerful new recruiting tool for the terrorist cause. Richard Clarke believes that the West's overreaction has inspired support for terrorist organisations which were initially in decline after the 2001 attacks. "People who are mad at the US for what we've done in Iraq and elsewhere are probably organising new networks we don't know about. But if that's true they'll probably be a lull between the time when the old al Qaeda is destroyed and the new one appears." (Corera 2004) The aim of terrorism is not to inflict damage or create fear and panic, it is to use these as tools to spark political change. The aim of revolutionaries such as Usama Bin Laden is to create an uprising by creating a cultural rift and recruiting others to their cause (Doran, S. 2002, p.1) (Curtis, A., 2004). They require their enemy to be provoked into action which in turn provokes others and creates a conflict which may or may not result in their victory. By keeping responses to terrorism rational and proportionate with the explicit aim of not antagonizing others, the victims of terrorism can render attacks ineffectual.

In Conclusion

Ultimately the war on terror' is a fallacy and war based on a fallacy can never be won or even fought. Due to the insidious, low cost and timeless nature on terrorism, one can never completely be assured of its eradication; however the threat can be minimized. Terrorist attacks can be thwarted through intelligence gathering, however this requires both domestic and international departmental and governmental integration for the best chance of success. Well-planned military strikes can be effective, however large scale attacks can merely provoke enemies and be counterproductive. The motivations and ideologies for terrorist attacks must also be understood and can in turn be combated. Domestic terrorism can be reduced through social inclusiveness and cultural integration and improving the image of a nation through dialogue and action reduces its position as an international target. Moreover, for any terrorism to be successful in its political aims it requires the engagement of the opposition in order to legitimise their political claims. By treating an attack as a crime and not overreacting to risk, terrorism can never be a successful political tool.

Learn more about this author, Ben Winsor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

Add your voice

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