I did a lot of walking around town today, doing errands, and some thoughts came into mind. Long walks in the cold by yourself tend to do that.
The questions that kept coming into my mind dealt with war. What is a war? It sounds like one of those obvious, self-evident kinds of things. But sometimes those obvious things need looked at too.
Right off the bat it would seem to me that there are two kinds of war. One war is the “real war”, with guns and tanks and helicopters and bullets. The other kind of war is the metaphorical war, like the “War on Poverty”. The “War on Poverty” doesn’t have anything to do with guns or bullets, it simply describes something that the government is battling against.
The question then, is where does the “War on Terror” fit in those definitions? Your gut instinct probably says it is entirely in the first category, that it’s a “real war” with bullets and bombs and missiles. But I think it might be also be a little bit in the second category as well.
President Lyndon B. Johnson formalized the phrase “War on Poverty” during his State of the Union address in 1964. The target was to reduce poverty to under 25%. Congress passed a lot of legislation to fund different programs to try and achieve that goal.
Except that after a few years, the focus on the “War on Poverty” shifted and it became seen as less of a priority. The level of American poverty has fluctuated but continues to be around 12.1%. That means that some 36 million Americans are living in poverty. So the “War on Poverty” might have had some successes, but it isn’t even close to being “over”.
The “War on Poverty” didn’t involve any use of bullets or helicopters but certainly the another metaphorical war, the “War on Drugs”, has seen extensive use of arms by the government. The current concept of “War on Drugs” began in 1971 with President Nixon. There is an entire federal law enforcement agency, the DEA, which operates armed agents in the United States and countries around the world.
The United States also spends billions of dollars in countries like Colombia as part of this “War on Drugs”. Some of that money goes to crop-eradication programs (such as against coca) while other money goes to training and equipping local military and law enforcement to use armed force against drug traffickers and growers.
But let’s look at a “real war” for a minute. A traditional or “real” war is probably best defined as declared armed conflict between two countries (states). Those states have full-time militaries, who are citizens distinguished from “civilians” by the fact that they are employed, equipped and trained to use force by the government. “Real” wars are supposedly fought according to a number of rules, some of which are detailed in the Geneva Conventions, which permit some kinds of actions and prohibit others.
Yet you have to ask yourself about some “real wars”. Was the armed conflict in Korea in the 1950’s a “real war”? The United States termed it a “police action”, although militaries fought each other in declared combat using powerful armaments such as artillery and helicopters. Was the armed conflict in Viet Nam a real war? If not, what was the difference between Viet Nam and “World War 2”?
And what about Operation Urgent Fury, which is more commonly known as the 1983 invasion of Grenada? The United States military used armed force to take over the sovereign nation of Grenada. Although “war” was not officially declared, it was not a covert or secret action. The United States military used force against another nation. At least 49 Grenadian soldiers died.
And what about sending in the Marines to Lebanon in 1982? What about sending the U.S. military to use force in Haiti in 1994? And again in 2004?
The more you look at what is or what isn’t a “war”, the less clear it becomes.
I mention all of this because I’ve been wondering exactly where the “War on Terror” falls in the above categories. Is it more of a metaphorical “war” like the War on Drugs or is it more like World War 2 or is it somewhere in between?
I think the easiest way to get to the bottom of that is to look at it not from the American government’s perspective, but from the terrorist’s perspective, in this case Al-Qaeda.
I realize that there are other terrorist groups besides Al-Qaeda, and that the U.S. government might be in a “war” with them, but the Authorization to Use Military Force of September 14, 2001 specifically limited the president’s “war powers” to fighting “those responsibile for 9/11”, which is presently defined as being Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda doesn’t have any helicopters or missiles or tanks. The devastation on September 11, 2001 wasn’t even caused by a conventional weapon at all. They took a civilian airliner, not classified as a weapon by anyone, and used it to kill. So did they engage in “war” against the United States that day?
In 1995, Timothy McVeigh and and others used items that would not be classified as weapons, farm fertilizer, a kind of gasoline and a rented truck to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah building. That attack killed 168 people. Did McVeigh and his associates engage in “war” against the United States that day?
McVeigh and his associates were a relatively small group of people. That’s the only operational difference between them and Al-Qaeda. McVeigh was associated with some white supremicists (including the Midwest Bank Robbers gang), who number in the thousands in the United States alone. Are militant white supremacists in a war against the United States? Or better asked, is the United States in a “war” against militant white supremacists?
The common sense answer is that no, the United States is not in a “real war” of any kind with the militant white supremacists but is somehow in a “real war” with Al-Qaeda.
The United States’ policy against militant white supremacists (and anti-government militias such as the Aryan Republican Army) is purely one of law enforcement. It is exactly parallel to the “War on Drugs”. Armed government agents, predominantly the FBI, use law enforcement tactics to surveil, arrest and prosecute militant white supremacists and anti-governmental militia members. The military is not involved at all except in the most tangential way.
So why is there a “real war” against Al-Qaeda? The first answer that probably springs to mind is that Al-Qaeda is a “foreign” organization while McVeigh and his associates were Americans operating in America. Al-Qaeda had substantial operations and training facilities in countries like Afghanistan before September 11.
But being “foreign” or of an international nature does not automatically mean the ball moves to the military’s court. The “War on Drugs” is most definitely being “fought” in an active and expensive fashion overseas, especially in countries like Peru, Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador.
But then again, the international aspect of the “War on Drugs” is being done by American law enforcement agencies in conjunction with local governments, whether their own law enforcement bodies or their military (or a mixture of both, known as “paramilitaries”).
Al-Qaeda was working hand-in-glove with the de facto government of Afghanistan prior to 9/11, known in America as the Taliban. Before any cooperation with an Afghan government to fight Al-Qaeda could begin, the current Afghan government had to be overthrown. And that was most definitely a job for the military.
And now the Taliban has been (largely) removed from the government. There is both a (somewhat) elected parliament and president. The current Afghan government is definitely allied with the United States, especially in the realm of fighting against Al-Qaeda. Logic says that the “war” on Al-Qaeda should now be moved to the law enforcement realm and that the military’s role is now over.
It may surprise a lot of people to know that the DEA has an office and agents in Afghanistan. So does the FBI. In many ways, their operation parallels exactly the projects being done in Colombia. Even the U.S. military’s role is similar to that in Colombia – arming and training the domestic law enforcement bodies and domestic military to fight Al-Qaeda.
But don’t the Taliban and other militants (often working for “warlords” or druglords) continue to fight? Yes. But the same thing is going on in Colombia. The Colombian government not only has to fight drug traffickers and cultivators, it also has to confront organized insurgency groups such as the FARC, who have thousands of armed fighters (many more than the Taliban or Al-Qaeda does in Afghanistan).
In a nutshell, the U.S. military fought a “real war”, whether declared or otherwise (or consistent with a “war” as defined by the Geneva Conventions) and overthrew the government, run by the group known as the Taliban, in early 2002. Ever since that time, the “war” in Afghanistan has been much more similar to the joint military/law enforcement operation in Colombia than it has been to a “real war”.
Looking at that analysis, the United States is now doing just what you’d expect. They are reducing troop levels and focusing more on rebuilding, construction and infrastructure programs. The military is involved in projects like Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which pair specially trained soldiers (often Special Forces soldiers) with civilian groups. The military often provides protection for these teams, but it is defensive in nature and isn’t along the lines of fighting a “real war”.
The situation in Iraq is very similar as well. For whatever reasons, the United States’ military began an armed conflict with the government of Iraq’s military in 2003. That was the “real war” part of what’s occurred. After around May 2003, the old government of Iraq was overthrown and a new government put in place. That was originally an American-led “Coalition Provisional Authority”, then it became the “interim Iraqi government” and is now the (somewhat) elected Iraqi government.
But don’t soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan get attacked and killed? Yes they do. But none of those deaths is in the context of a “real war”, or “standard war”. The U.S. military is not engaged with another military in the conventional sense. The term for the people attacking the U.S. military is debated, but I’ll use the word “insurgents”. The insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan are not representing a government, they’re not even all allied with each other. Some are organized around religious lines, some are organized around political parties (Ba’ath or Taliban), some a little of both. Some are simply fighting because they feel their country is being occupied by foreign troops.
So are American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting a “real war” right now or not? You could argue they aren’t, because they’re involved in a “police action”, a sort of beefed up law enforcement duty. They are in the country to maintain law and order and their primary opponent is people who break the law, i.e. criminals.
It may seem strange to call insurgents who plant land mines (IEDs) that cause death by the term “criminals”. But isn’t that how the government treated the actions of Timothy McVeigh, as a criminal? McVeigh was a citizen in his own country who broke the law, albeit in a spectacularly violent way. Are insurgents in Iraq any different? They are citizens in their own country, who are breaking the laws of their own land. Is there really a legalistic difference between an Iraqi who robs another Iraqi and an Iraqi who plants an IED and blows up an American vehicle? They’re both criminals.
Let’s put it another way. In 1994, the United States sent its military to Haiti. If a local Haitian used a gun to shoot at an American soldier, was that an act of war or was it simply a criminal act?
Of course I realize there are non-Iraqis who use force against United States (and coalition) troops, but those are a tiny fraction of the number of people engaged in violence in Iraq.
So once again I ask, are soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting a “real war” or is it more of a case where the military is conducting a beefed-up law enforcement-style, police action? The answer is surprisingly different based on which ideological camp you come from.
Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan in a detached manner, it would seem to me that what’s going on there is insignificantly different than what’s going on in Colombia. The military is involved, but the vast majority of their duties are law enforcement in nature. Both police officers and soldiers use guns and helicopters and force. The primary (and crucial) difference between a “war” and a “police action” is that a “real war” means using the military in an armed conflict with the military of another state.
The administration (and most of its supporters) come from a different ideological perspective. They consider Al-Qaeda to be a de facto state or country. They never use this word, but they consider Al-Qaeda to be an actual army or military.
The difference between Timothy McVeigh and his small circle of militant white supremacists and Al-Qaeda is one of scale. McVeigh and his associates numbered less than a hundred, were physically concentrated in a few areas, and were relatively unsophisticated.
On the other hand, Al-Qaeda is perceived to be international in nature and extremely sophisticated. Not only do they engage in extensive training for conventional fighting (with small arms and IEDs), they also co-ordinate sophisticated attacks (simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania) and do extensive pre-strike planning, whether in the case of 9/11 or the attack on the USS Cole.
Al-Qaeda is the outgrowth of a number of insurgency groups known as the muhajeddin, who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. They received funding, equipment, armaments and supplies from Pakistan (and via the CIA), including for advanced weaponry like Stinger missiles. Most importantly, they received extensive training in military tactics. Although they were not a military of a government, they became a de facto army. They were organized, they had ranks, they had divisions.
Al-Qaeda took many of those muhajeddin, with their de facto military training, and combined them with a philosophical structure and organized financing. As many muhajeddin fighters had come from other countries (including Saudi Arabia) to fight in Afghanistan, it was relatively simple to branch out Al-Qaeda’s operations to multiple locations around the world.
The Soviet Union was already out of Afghanistan when Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. It was the stationing of American and western troops, who were (mostly) non-Muslims, on Saudi Arabian soil that was the final “spark” that catalyzed the creation of Al-Qaeda. The first philosophical “plank” of Al-Qaeda’s mission was to remove all non-Muslim troops from Saudi Arabian soil.
Al-Qaeda soon used its international aspect to focus its efforts in other countries where Muslims were fighting. This included the armed conflicts in Bosnia and Chechnya amongst others. Although Al-Qaeda members were organized, trained and equipped quite similarly to an army, in effect a de facto military, because they were not the agents of a sovereign nation (state), none of their acts in Bosnia, Sudan, Chechnya or elsewhere were (or are) classified as military engagements. They are instead referred to as “terrorism”.
Strangely, if you actually read Al-Qaeda statements, you will see that they view their actions exactly this way – as military in nature. They never think of themselves as “insurgents” or “terrorists” but rather as a military organization which uses force to achieve the installation of Muslim theocracies in various states around the world.
In this sense, Al-Qaeda is treated as a “stateless army” but is called only by the term “terrorist”. And that’s really where all the confusion stems from.
Al-Qaeda did not invent terrorism. It is not even close to being the first organized group to use terrorist tactics. Defining what is and what isn’t “terrorism” is very controversial, but groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) and the Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM) and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) have been engaging in terrorist acts long before Al-Qaeda came down the pike.
Those groups set off bombs. Those groups targeted civilians. Those groups destroyed and sabotaged infrastructure. Those groups attacked and killed members of the military, law enforcement and civilian government. And the LTTE in particular used suicide bombers. In every conceivable sense, those groups were “terrorist groups”. They used organized violence to achieve a political aim and the said violence was considered “illegal” or “immoral” warfare, as opposed to the “lawful” and “moral” warfare of militaries operating on behalf of sovereign nations (states).
But I mentioned those groups for a reason – they still exist in operational structure but they have (by and large) stopped committing terrorist acts. At various times, the militaries of the government tried using military tactics to stop, disrupt or eliminate those groups but in every case they failed. What actually worked (by and large) was a negotiated political settlement, usually something along the lines of “disarm and we’ll give you a seat at the table” in the government.
Another group to consider is what is commonly called the “mafia”, which can be either the “Italian mafia” or the “Russian mafia” or many other variants. The “mafia” refers to a highly organized criminal organization who uses violence to promote a philosophical ideal. Any mafia’s philosophical ideal is based along profits from criminal enterprises. If you look at Al-Qaeda or the LTTE, their goals are quite different than a mafia, but they are organized around using unsanctioned violence to promote a philosophical ideal.
The difference between a “mafia” and a terrorist group is that the mafia’s philosophical ideals do not include a change in the nature of government. The mafia’s philosophical underpinning is to increase revenue through illegal acts. Any violence that the mafia uses is not to support any change in the government, therefore they do not fall into the definition of “terrorist” even though they may use the same forms of violence (gunning down civilians, killing government officials, etc) as a terrorist group.
The governments in question always choose a law enforcement route to combat (or fight) the mafia. Goverments have chosen to use the military to fight terrorist groups, but this has been nearly universally a failure (the Shining Path in Peru and UNITA in Angola are partial exemptions). Yet there have been many, many successes in neutralizing terrorist groups, and nearly all of them fall in the same pattern.
The EZLN in Mexico, the GAM in Indonesia, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, the MFDC in Senegal, the MPLA and FNLA in Angola, the IRA in Northern Ireland, RENAMO and FRELIMO in Mozambique, the ANC in South Africa, the SPLA in Sudan, the EPLF in Ethiopia, the FNL in Burundi, the RPF in Rwanda, the Mukti Bahini in Bangladesh, the AUC in Colombia, the MILF in the Philippines, the FRETILIN in Timor Leste (E. Timor) and the FNL in Algeria were all considered terrorist groups at one time. And by and large, they were nullified or pacified through negotiated political means, usually involving power-sharing in exchange for disarmament.
In other words, if you want to look at the track record of “successes” in neutralizing or pacifying terrorist organizations, then you will see that they rarely have any military component to them. In instances where the military is used to repress terrorist groups, the record is much less successful and in many cases, armed conflict with them tends to strengthen their support in the general populace and fuel their dedication to their respective philosophical reason for existance.
So is Al-Qaeda a “standard” terrorist organization or is it a de facto military? Because if it’s a “standard” terrorist organization, then I’m sorry to tell the current administration this but a negotiated political settlement is the most effective method to neutralize them.
I think however that the administration, and certainly many others, would agree that Al-Qaeda is more like a military than it is a “standard” terrorist group. And if the United States is using its military (whether with bombs or the NSA’s surveillance abilities) to fight a war with a military, then we fall into the category of asymmetric warfare, often referred to as “guerilla warfare”.
If the United States is indeed fighting a guerilla war against Al-Qaeda, then that’s bad news indeed. Most guerilla wars have been lost by the organized “traditional” military and won by the guerillas, either by outright victory or through attrition. The armed conflict in Viet Nam is probably the best known example in America of a guerilla war that the “traditional” military lost, although the United States’ own Revolutionary War also qualifies.
The fighting ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan is guerilla warfare. It is (by and large) natives that are using non-standard tactics, to include “terrorist acts”, to fight against the traditional military of the United States and the other members of the coalition. It should be noted that the insurgents/Taliban/warlords are also using those tactics against their own governments as well.
The fact that the United States is fighting a guerilla war in both Afghanistan and Iraq is hardly disputed. The question however is if this war is against terrorists. Is it more of a war against insurgency groups who sometimes use terrorist tactics or is it more of an attempt by the military to suppress a “standard” terrorist organization?
Understanding the difference is crucial. If the United States, through both its military and law enforcement bodies, is fighting “standard” terrorist organizations then a negotiated political settlement has been proven to be the most effective method of success. If the United States is involved in a guerilla war of insurgents whose primary aim is to remove the occupying army, then it isn’t a war on terror(ism) at all.
I don’t think that many people would say that there is any significant representation of Al-Qaeda members actually fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is to say, the bulk of the people committing the acts of violence (whether “terrorist” or not) are actually natives engaged in a guerilla war. Let’s put it this way – if every resident of Iraq and Afghanistan were killed, then the guerilla war would be over but Al-Qaeda would still exist.
Therefore the “War on Terror” and what’s currently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally separate actions. That’s key. There might be an ongoing guerilla war against insurgent groups who use terrorist tactics, making it a “War on Terror(ists)”, but the military’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq do not constitute a war on Al-Qaeda at all.
Saddam Hussein, the Ba’ath Party, the fedayeen, the Taliban and warlords like Gelbuddin Hekmatyar are not Al-Qaeda. Fighting them in a guerilla war might be something the United States considers beneficial or productive, but has relatively nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Members of Al-Qaeda operate and train in a number of countries from Somalia to Indonesia to the Philippines. The invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taliban simply disrupted Al-Qaeda’s network and shook up their chain of command. It did not destroy them or neutralize them or even “decapitate” them.
Saddam Hussein, the Ba’ath Party, the fedayeen, the Taliban and warlords like Gelbuddin Hekmatyar had nothing directly to do with 9/11. They did not attack the United States and they never threatened the security of the United States. You might say that the Taliban “harbored” Al-Qaeda so they are indirectly responsible, but you could say that Saudi Arabia financed Al-Qaeda so they are indirectly responsible too.
The point I’m making is that the billions of dollars spent in Afghanistan and Iraq in the “War on Terror” might (depending on whom you listen to, of course) be combating terorrism in general, but they are doing nothing to reduce the efficacy of Al-Qaeda’s operations. And it was Al-Qaeda who struck American embassies in Africa. It was Al-Qaeda which killed sailors on the USS Cole. And it was Al-Qaeda who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 and killed thousands of civilians.
I vehemently disagree with the theory that the current joint law enforcement/military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are combating or reducing terrorism as a whole. But even if you think those operations have been “effective”, nobody can rationally argue that Al-Qaeda has been principle target in the “War on Terror”. I guess that’s what mystifies me so much.
Most politicians on both sides of the aisle, as well as the horde of traditional journalists, continue to lump the government’s actions under one category, the “War on Terror” as though it were a hegemonic enterprise. It’s not. There are two ongoing guerilla wars against the indigenous populations of two nations. And then there’s the operation against Al-Qaeda, which is miniscule in comparison.
Therefore there are actually three wars going on. There is the Occupation of Iraq war, the Occupation of Afghanistan war, both of which are a mix of “police action” and “guerilla warfare”. And then there’s the real “War on Terror(ism)”, which is the war against Al-Qaeda.
It’s quite a sleight of hand to lump in the two guerilla wars with the war against Al-Qaeda (the REAL threat to America) under the banner “War on Terror” because it makes it seem like every soldier sent to Iraq is somehow fighting Al-Qaeda, which is not even close to reality. And those two guerilla wars (or police actions) have been incredibly expensive, both in terms of money as well as lives taken.
Words matter. Semantics count. It’s time to stop referring to the armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as the “War on Terror”. They are no more “wars against terrorism” than was the war in Viet Nam, against the Viet Cong, which incidentally engaged in many terrorist acts.
And since Al-Qaeda is the real threat to America, it’s time to make the real “War on Terror” the national priority. It’s time to hit the books to look at cases where terrorist groups have been neutralized and see what worked in the past. Because as far as I’m aware, not only does the “old” leadership of Al-Qaeda still exist (Osama bin who?), but even the lieutenants like Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, Ali Atwa, Anas Al-Liby, Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah, Imad Fayez Mugniyah and others are still operational.
