Rethinking the Global War on Terror and Challenging U.S. Militarism Ter-ror-ism – n. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Just days after the September 11 attacks, President George Bush announced a “Global War on Terror” to capture and kill terrorists associated with Al Qaeda, the terrorist group held responsible for the attacks. Since then, the U.S. has used state terror to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also used military strikes against the sovereign nations of Pakistan, Syria, and Somalia. U.S. threats against Iran have also been framed as part of the “Global War on Terror.”
The ideological framework of the so-called “Global War on Terror” – using the U.S. military to fight terrorism - has proven to be counterproductive. The U.S. military footprint in the Middle East has enraged people across the region, cost the United States tremendously in human and financial treasure. Al Qaeda now has a presence in Iraq that it didn’t have in 2003, and in the six years following the invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was involved in more terrorist attacks than it had been in the previous six years. Many foreign policy experts expect a 9/11-scale attack in the next few years on U.S. soil.
The “Global War on Terror” rhetoric has also become a way for the U.S. government demonize or attack any government or organization it doesn’t agree with politically, culturally or economically, without addressing the root causes of terrorism or implementing the most effective ways of addressing the real terrorist threat or legitimate foreign policy challenges. SMART SOLUTIONS
The flawed “Global War on Terror” framework should be replaced with a counterterrorism strategy based on proven methods – and adopt the pragmatic language of “counterterrorism.” According to a 2008 Rand Corporation report, in the last forty years only a tiny percentage of terrorist groups have been quashed by military force. Overwhelmingly they end when their members are brought into the political process, or the groups are broken up by good intelligence and police work, which requires cooperative law enforcement and intelligence sharing among governments.
The U.S. should also strengthen and deploy nonmilitary aid and engagement, particularly through the State Department, and reverse the dangerous trend of putting non-military functions of the State Department and the Justice Department under the purview of the Department of Defense. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, “There is the need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security – diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development.”
The theory and practice of nonviolence provides a foundation for addressing the threat of terrorism and general conflict. The demand for peace must be coupled with a demand for justice, which requires addressing injustices where they occur and working to resolve differences through a democratic political process, rather than terror.
Increasing troop levels in Afghanistan would be the continuation of the deeply misguided strategy. Instead, President Obama and Congress should:
Reduce the U.S military footprint in Afghanistan with the goal of complete withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces
Support negotiations with elements of the Taliban. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has expressed interest in pursuing diplomatic negotiations with elements of the Taliban willing to accept the sovereignty of the Afghan government
Prioritize the goal of preventing terrorism and leave the goal of democracy to the Afghans themselves
President Obama ran on a platform of withdrawing most U.S. combat forces from Iraq within sixteen months of taking office. While this is a first step, by leaving anywhere from 30,000 to 70,000 “residual” U.S. forces in Iraq, it will not end the illegal occupation. President Obama and Congress should work to:
End the occupation of Iraq by withdrawing all combat forces, noncombat forces, private contractors from Iraq, and closing/turning over U.S. military bases to Iraq
Announce support for a UN mandate to take effect in 2009 that will legitimate and define international participation in Iraqi reconciliation, reconstruction, and humanitarian aid
Immediately engage Syria and Iran to contribute to the political stabilization of Iraq and to explore possible regional solutions to outstanding issues
Cease pressure on Iraq to open up its economy and oil sector to foreign investment
The current U.S. policy of isolation, military threats and sanctions will not work with Iran. It is time for a new strategy involving direct, unconditional and comprehensive negotiations with Iranian leadership. President Obama and Congress should work to:
Engage in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program without preconditions
Address Iran’s nuclear programs within the context of security guarantees, the easing of U.S. sanctions, and other regional issues, including the Israel-Palestine crisis, Iraq, and Afghanistan
Replace calls for regime change with a long-term strategy of engagement
|
U.S. Militarism 
