|
|
|
5763: Articles posted from September 2002-September 2003 Get the real situation in Israel every day.
May 11, 2003 Words At War By Chanan Kubitsky More than any war before, the media played a central role in the war in Iraq. Military personnel vied for access to TV, radio and print media, and euphemistic military-speak became household jargon. This war of words is fraught with self-serving misnomers, vagueness and exaggerations that warrant careful analysis. The War Against Terrorism Essential for any military campaign is the ability to define its goals and to identify the enemy correctly. This isn’t always a simple thing to do. Consider the gross misnomer 'war against terrorism.' Terrorism isn’t the enemy, it is the means employed by the enemy. Imagine Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring a 'war against sneak attacks' after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The attack on September 11, 2001 was perpetrated by an organization called Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. Following that attack, one would have expected President Bush to declare war on Al Qaeda. Instead, the Administration decided to name that nebulous, abstract adversary: terrorism. There are several advantages to using this misnomer. First, it lends itself to expediency. America was fighting terrorists, wherever they could be found. The Administration is absolved of taking a full account of the complexities of an emerging situation. Instead of declaring war on Al Qaeda, studying its motives, goals, strategies, leadership, and whereabouts, they performed an exercise in simplification to get quick results. Second, the misnomer 'war on terrorism' serves to quickly mobilize America and the world for war. If 'they' are terrorists, it’s clear that 'we' are the good guys about to 'take out' the bad guys. This simplified black-and-white world view gives the war a familiar ring of time-honored goals: this war on terrorism, sounds just like George W. Bush's previously declared war on illiteracy and Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty. Who can object to such noble causes? Of course this analogy breaks down when you go beyond the words. You can fight terrorists, but no one suggests that you similarly fight the poor and illiterate. But who are 'they’? Al Qaeda is notoriously elusive, but President Bush needed specific targets to make an example of. After Afghanistan was razed, the 'axis of evil' came up. In the State of the Union address, on January 29, 2002, Bush named specific 'rogue states' that are accused harboring terrorists, or perhaps some weapons of mass destruction, or may just have character of ill repute (generally speaking). This axis is another gross misnomer, the brainchild of a zealous speechwriter. There is no ideological or polticial 'axis' connecting Iraq, Iran, North Korea, 'and their terrorist allies' (as quoted from the speech). These states share no history, interests, or alliances. North Korea's reported sales of rocket and nuclear technology knowhow to Iran were not the result of forming a strategic alliance, but a business deal meant to bring cash into Pyongyang's empty coffers. While using such abstractions in describing your enemy has advantages in achieving expediency, it is not without its dangers. When pursuing targets of convenience, you might lose sight of the real enemy. A hyperactive administration could find itself creating new enemies faster than it can rid itself of the old. Others were quick to hop onto the anti-terrorism bandwagon. In seeking legitimacy for his own war, President Vladimir Putin volunteered the Chechens to the new most-wanted list. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon similarly dismissed the war with the Palestinians as anti-terrorism, warranting – in his mind – a total war till extermination. Unlike Al Qaeda, the Palestinians have national aspirations, but the 'terrorist' label gives Sharon license to ignore them. The War Against Iraq The declaration of war on Iraq was confusing. War was declared alternately for a variety of reasons: Iraq is illegally developing weapons of mass destruction; Iraq is a member of the 'axis of evil’; Iraq is in cahoots with Al Qaeda; Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant. The reasons for war increasingly sounded like excuses for war. The intentional sloppy use of language kept everyone guessing. So far, it was Saddam Hussein who paid the price. Saddam did his best to maneuver between the ever-changing requirements until finally, it became clear that there was nothing he could do to avert war, short of having himself 'taken out.' If the reasons for war weren't clear, the question of America's staying on, as an occupying power, are also not clear. What does 'nation building' really mean? What kind of Iraqi regime would the U.S. agree to? Who will organize and pay for the rebuilding of the country? And finally, if the goals are so nebulous, how would we know when they are achieved and it’s time to go home? The War Against Al Qaeda America will need to reorganize in order to fight Al Qaeda effectively – beyond the overnight crafting of the department of Homeland Security. Guerrilla armies are generally weak in conventional terms. But even the strongest, best-equipped regular armies have a hard time fighting guerilla wars. The enemy wears no uniform, is deceptive in its maneuvers and tactics, and is unencumbered by accepted wartime conventions dealing with prisoners of war, civilian population, and unconventional weapons. The guerilla soldier is very highly motivated and driven by strong conviction. The term 'guerilla' is used here interchangeably with 'terrorism' in order to introduce a more neutral term. Modern day terrorists view civilians as legitimate targets, as being an extension of enemy forces. The term 'terrorism' has more to do with the emotional response of the victims than with the tactics of the perpetrators. A guerrilla war isn't usually won in decisive knockout fashion. Rather, it can drag out over many years with limited skirmishes fought for points. The war against Al Qaeda is likely to go on for twenty-five to forty years, according to retired General Wayne Downing, who heads the U.S. global war against terrorism in the National Security Council. This war needs to be fought on more than just the military front. Getting down to the root cause of Al Qaeda terrorism could go a long way towards nipping this movement at the bud. Smart leadership will turn the destructive cycle of terror and counter-terror into a win-win situation that will eventually lead to the re-integration of Arab Muslims back into the mainstream of world economic and cultural life. Chanan Kubitsky is a high tech manager, based in Tel Aviv.
|
!!! News Now !!!  Peace 
Pleasure  Bookstore Contact About Archive Donate or use Paypal  Peace Buttons The Middle East at Amazon 
|
© Ariga 1995-2003. For republishing rights please contact the author of the specific article on this page. Permission is granted to link to this page.