|
|
|
What We Are Really Up Against
By Henry E. Mattox, Editor
As all of us realize when we stop to think about it, the Western World and other industrialized nations do not literally face a "war on terrorism" or a "war against terrorism," however useful we find such phrases as shorthand in describing the conflict. It is truly a war of sorts. Terrorism, however, does not equate with an enemy country, an alliance of nations or even an identifiable leader intent upon gaining power. Terrorism further does not represent a creed or doctrine or set of beliefs such as communism or fascism or nihilism.
No, terrorism can most accurately be described as a tactic, a mode of operation—using violence quite deliberately against civilian innocents as a means to bring attention to perceived wrongs and to force desired change on the political scene. If a group of true-believer zealots does not have direct access to power or effective recourse to electoral processes, for whatever reason, and perhaps does not even boast a significant following among its host population, one of the very few approaches that remains open is the use of terror tactics.
Some of those who practice terrorism seek the imposition of religious dogma along with political programs, as is the case most prominently in recent years in the Islamic world. The scourge of terrorism is far from new, however, and historically terrorists have espoused a wide variety of power-related convictions and creeds that often did not relate to theology. They have long bombed and assassinated and disrupted and proclaimed and alienated, all in the name of their particular political goals.
America opposes the representatives of radical, politicized Islam. Recognition of this basic fact solves nothing, but it does highlight the complexity of the struggle in which the United States and the West find themselves embroiled. No identifiable antagonist can be called "terrorism," against which America and friendly nations can launch its armed forces. Would that they could: Virtually any industrialized nation alone could bring overwhelming deadly military force against any current collection of terrorist fighters such as al Qaeda.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. This nation and its allies must face down and defeat fairly small, shifting groups of fanatics quite willing to engage in suicide tactics, not an identifiable foe such as the Iraqi army during the First Gulf War. Defeating this kind of enemy has proven difficult in the extreme, given the nature of the conflict and the shifting target that Islamic terrorists present. Certainly preemptive action such as the U. S. invasion of Iraq after 9/11 has not proven to be the answer. (The invasion of Afghanistan, the government-sanctioned haven of al Qaeda, was another matter, but whatever success in view there has been allowed to slip away.)
The epic confrontation will require as a foundation for eventual success the patient pursuit of efficient long-term counterinsurgency, police, and special forces measures, not traditional military tactics; reexamination of political priorities, especially in the Middle East; and steadfast determination. Preventing terror tactics as spectacularly successful as 9/11 and the Madrid train bombings will be not only highly desirable but absolutely essential.
Above all, in this trial by fire, those opposing terrorism must be clear about just what and who the enemy is. The struggle could conceivably prove to be longer than any conventional war in which the United States has ever been engaged.
October 4, 2004