Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Criticisms of U.S. objectives and strategies


 
Main article: Criticism of the War on Terrorism


 The War on Terrorism as indefinite and indeterminate


Policy experts have criticized the "War on Terrorism" as an irresponsible metaphor, arguing that "war" must by definition be waged against nations—not against broad and controversial categories of activity such as "terrorism". Cognitive linguist George Lakoff writes:

“ Literal—not metaphorical—wars are conducted against armies of other nations. They end when the armies are defeated militarily and a peace treaty is signed. Terror is an emotional state. It is in us. It is not an army. And you can’t defeat it militarily and you can’t sign a peace treaty with it. ”

Dr. David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency and counterterrorism advisor to Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has asserted that:

“ We must distinguish Al Qa'eda and the broader militant movements it symbolises—entities that use terrorism—from the tactic of terrorism itself. In practice, as will be demonstrated, the 'War on Terrorism' is a defensive war against a world-wide Islamist jihad, a diverse confederation of movements that uses terrorism as its principal, but not its sole tactic. ”

Francis Fukuyama, a prominent former neoconservative, has made the similar point that:

“ The term 'war on terrorism' is a misnomer, resulting in distorted ideas of the main threat facing Americans today. Terrorism is only a means to an end; in this respect, a 'war on terror' makes
no more sense than a war on submarines.


The term "terrorism" has been also been characterized as unacceptably vague. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime observes:

“ The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
Opponents critical of this inherent subjectivity point out that governments such as Iran, Lebanon, and Venezuela consistently use the term "terrorism" to describe actions taken by the United States.


In an article published in October 29, French Army officer LTC Jean-Pierre Steinhofer described war on Terror as a "semantic, strategic and legal perversion. . . Terrorism is not an enemy, but a method of combat."

Further criticism maintains that the War on Terrorism provides a framework for perpetual war; that the announcement of such open-ended goals produces a state of endless conflict, since "terrorist groups" can continue to arise indefinitely. President Bush has pledged that the War on Terrorism "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated". During a July 2007 visit to the United States, newly appointed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown defined the War on Terror, specifically the element involving conflict with Al Qaeda, as "a generational battle".

The War on Terrorism as counterproductive




A number of security experts, politicians, and policy organizations have claimed that the War on Terrorism has been counterproductive: that it has consolidated opposition to the U.S., aided terrorist recruitment, and increased the likelihood of attacks against the U.S. and its allies. In a 2005 briefing paper, the Oxford Research Group reported that:

“ Al-Qaida and its affiliates remain active and effective, with a stronger support base and a higher intensity of attacks than before 9/11. ...Far from winning the 'war on terror', the second George W. Bush administration is maintaining policies that are not curbing paramilitary movements and are actually increasing violent anti-Americanism. ”

The South African Mail & Guardian describes research commissioned by the British Ministry of Defence which concluded:

“ The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act. ”

Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, have argued that the "globalization of martyrdom" potentiated by the Iraq War:

“ Has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost.”

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate issued the following among its "key judgments":

“ The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”

On September 19, 2008, the RAND Corporation presented the results of a comprehensive study for "Defeating Terrorist Groups" before the United States House Armed Services Committees. RAND's testimony began with the thesis statement:

“ The United States cannot continue conducting an effective counter-terrorism campaign against al Qa’ida without understanding how terrorist groups end. ”

Their conclusions included strong proposals for strategic policy changes:

“ [The U.S. military] should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim countries where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment. ”

and recommended, "ending the notion of a 'war' on terrorism" and "Moving away from military references would indicate that there was no battlefield solution to countering terrorism."

In conclusion, the RAND study advised:

“ By far the most effective strategy against religious groups has been the use of local police and intelligence services, which were responsible for the end of 73 percent of [terrorist] groups since 1968.”


 Double standards



Others have criticized the U.S. for double standards in its dealings with key allies that are also known to support terrorist groups, such as Pakistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly stated that in the "war against terrorism," “the central front is Pakistan"; Pakistan has also been alleged to provide Taliban operatives with covert support via the ISI. These accusations of double dealing regard civil liberties and human rights as well as terrorism. According to the Federation of American Scientists, "[i]n its haste to strengthen the "frontline" states' ability to confront transnational terrorist threats on their soil, and to gain the cooperation of regimes of geostrategic significance to the next phases of the "War on Terrorism", the administration is disregarding normative restrictions on U.S. aid to human rights abusers." Amnesty International has argued that the Patriot Act gives the U.S. government free rein to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. The Bush administration's use of torture and alleged use of extraordinary rendition and secret prisons have all fueled opposition to the War on Terrorism. 


Decreasing international support

In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terrorism, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terrorism in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supports the War on Terrorism, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan support the effort. Indian support for the War on Terrorism has been stable. Andrew Kohut, speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that, according to the Pew Research Center polls conducted in 2004, "majorities or pluralities in seven of the nine countries surveyed said the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not really a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. This was true not only in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Turkey, but in France and Germany as well. The true purpose of the war on terrorism, according to these skeptics, is American control of Middle East oil and U.S. domination of the world."

Stella Rimington, former head of the British intelligence service MI5 has criticised the war on terror as a "huge overreaction", and had decried the militarization and politicization of the U.S. efforts to be the wrong approach to terrorism. David Milliband, UK foreign secretary, has similarly called the strategy a "mistake".  


Abuse of power


The War on Terrorism has been viewed by some as a pretext for reducing civil liberties.

The NSA electronic surveillance program and DARPA's Total Information Awareness were two examples of post-September 11 government monitoring programs.

A controversy also erupted concerning National Security Letters, issued by the federal government and not subject to prior judicial review. These letters demanded information the government asserted was relevant to a terrorism investigation, but also contained a gag order preventing recipients from revealing the existence of the letter. Critics contend this prevents public oversight of government investigations, and allows unreasonable search and seizure to go unchecked. The American Civil Liberties Union complained that Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act removed the need for the government to connect recipients to a terrorism investigation, widening the possibility for abuse.

The Protect America Act of 2007 was also controversial for its lack of judicial review.

In October 2008, British PM Gordon Brown used the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to freeze Icelandic holdings in Great Britain during the Icelandic financial crisis. Iceland's prime minister Geir Haarde protested against what he described "a terrorist law being applied against us", calling it "a completely unfriendly act". Iceland is a founding member of NATO

No comments:

Post a Comment

EZLaptops-Free Laptops for You