War on Terror: The global war

Robert Cornwell has written a piece for The Independent that is full of the usual tripe of the left in regards to the global war on terror. One of his main premises is that the next three months is crucial for the United States' war on terror, without explanation as to why this 3 month window, versus say 6 months, or nine months is of such importance. Apparently if there is no civil war in Iraq within 3 months, then we are "in like Flynt" as the saying goes.

He correctly states that Iraq is but one battle in what will be a long worldwide campaign and offers this quote from George Bush: "Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.......Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen."

This statement was made to Congress nine days after the 9-11 attacks. It is a statement that Congress, people left of center and unfortunately many of the general population conveniently like to forget.

Mr. Cornwell constantly puts the war on terror in quotes, indicating perhaps this really is not a war at all in his estimation. He defines terrorism as "the use of violence for political ends", but he would have been far more accurate, and it would have served him well to include in that definition, violence on innocent civilians.

It's hard to believe - but less than five years ago there was no "war on terror". You could make the case that terrorism, the use of violence for political ends, is the world's third oldest profession. This century especially, it has flourished - from the Middle East to Europe. Sometimes, in its Irish, Basque and Palestinian versions, it has been driven by nationalism. Other varieties, in Italy and former West Germany, have been fuelled by left-wing ideology. But it had primarily been a law enforcement and intelligence problem. Then came 11 September 2001 - and America's new war.

The new enemy is radical Islam, driven by both ideology and nationalism, and embodied by al-Qa'ida, its fury directed against the West in general and the US in particular. Already the "war on terror" has led America to embrace a new doctrine of preventive war. In its name, the US has invaded two countries - Afghanistan and Iraq - and some urge it to attack others. This amorphous conflict has already lasted longer than the Korean War and US involvement in the Second World War, and this may be only the beginning.

Cornwell points out the effectiveness of the war on Al Qaeda and its impact on their organizational structure, but then points out the various splinter groups loosely tied to Al Qaeda and their ability to strike out around the world, emphasizing, however, the notable exception - the U.S.; here he questions why this is.

Using the less than successful cases against Moussaoui, Padilla and Sami al-Arian (the Florida professor) he says, "These episodes have not been a glowing advertisement for US justice."
Because of these failings and because of many scares since 9/11, but no attacks on our soil, one false alarm after another, as he calls them, or "solid" evidence of sleeper cells here, Cornwell surmises that, "the conclusion is inescapable. Either the threat has been much exaggerated, or somebody must be doing something right." He does not go out on a limb here and say which he believes.

He writes that this is a war on many fronts (which I agree with), but that it is a war on so many fronts, that he questions whether the GWOT is really a war (with the disclaimer "in the normal sense of the word"). So we are finally getting around to the fact as to why he had to put quotation marks around his usage of the war on terror. Namely, that it really is not a war. Not an uncommon position from someone on the left.

He oddly tries to compare it with America's decades-old "war on drugs" and "war on poverty" because it entails more than military action. Semantics as I see it. Words, matter, yes. But sometimes we get hung up on labels; as is the case here. Cornwell states:

Briefly last summer, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and others began to talk about "the global struggle against violent extremism", in an effort to play down the military component. But within a month the new moniker had disappeared. Mr Bush underlined the point by citing the "war on terror" a dozen times in a single speech."

I don't see those two monikers as saying anything radically different from each other. Nor would our approach to obtaining victory be any different or dependent upon what the "correct" or "preferred" moniker is.

He spews out the normal talking points of the American left like Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 partly or mostly because of the dislike between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. This is a silly and shallow argument; since when did you have to be loving blood-brothers to join together to fight a common enemy? Another talking point is espoused: The invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the original goal and the war in Afghanistan.

Cornwell then starts to display his, up to now, unknown skills of a tea leaf reader. He feels Americans are fed up with the conflict in Iraq, that Americans now believe that prewar Iraq was never a direct threat to the US, and that the war to remove Sadaam has made them less safe.

Mr Bush, he says, has tried to prove that "radical Islam is out to establish a new caliphate, stretching from Spain to Indonesia, governed by sharia law and casting the world back into the Middle Ages." Cornwell further states this has a zero chance of happening.

Am I to assume, then, that since he thinks this is an impossibility, we have no reason to act? Or that we should revert back to the good old days of treating it like a law enforcement and intelligence problem? That approach did not work out so well for us.

According to Cornwell, in order to win this 'war on terror', "Genuine victory will require political and societal change. It will require radical change in the Arab world's view of the US, and in Arab society itself." He then falls into the liberal trap of trying to explain away terrorism by claiming that its' root causes are poverty, despair, prejudices, stoked by religious bigotry. America is also guilty of ultimately being interested only in protecting Israel and oil and we will use force to "have our way". Just more tired leftist talking points.

"Somehow, the US and its allies must convince the Islamic world that they are not waging a religious war, or discriminating against Muslims. Unfortunately, deeds suggest otherwise," he laments, adding, "The image of the US is in tatters." And of course, according to Cornwell, it will stay that way until this present administration is gone.

Oh, but of course. For it is then, and only then, when the US will once again be loved and admired by everyone like it was before. Sorry. I forgot that period in history. I must have pulled a Rip Van Winkle. Just exactly when was this state of Nirvana?

He says, "In short, hostility to the US will persist." With this I do not necessarily disagree. But is that our chief concern? I know to many on the left, it is. It is an emotional want of the left - to be liked, admired, adored. (Hollywood comes to mind).

This one statement from Cornwell, I think, sums up his thoughts and attitude best: "Americans, in all probability, will develop a more European, more fatalistic attitude to terrorism: that it is a scourge to be contained, rather than eliminated once and for all."

That is the European way of seeing things. Appeasement. Accepting fate - that's just the way things are - we can't change it - we have no right to change it.

That's not our way; besides, their way presently looks like a colossal failure. We want to win; we want to change things for the better; and believe we can, and that we should.

Cornwall overlooks a third option. Despite the realistic realization that it cannot and will not be eliminated once and for all, drop the fatalism mindset, and attack it as we are now. We cannot contain it through passive means; relying on police tactics alone is a recipe for failure. 9/11 proved that.