Author: Daniel Pipes
Publication: The Jerusalem Post
Date: September 26, 2001
URL: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/26/Opinion/Opinion.35375.html
In his speech defining American
policy on September 20, President George W. Bush explained what he meant
by declaring "war on terror" and told the American people what it will
mean to them. Overall, it was a strong presentation, with some parts exactly
right, but it also contains errors that urgently require fixing.
Let's start with five good points:
* The enemy's goal: It's "not merely
to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life."
That involves "remaking the world
- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere." The president
shows no illusions that al-Qaida's problem is American freedoms or United
States policy in the Middle East, but something far more ambitious - the
very existence of the US in its present form. As he put it, "In Afghanistan,
we see al-Qaida's vision for the world," one which applies no less to New
York than to Kabul.
* The enemy's nature: It is the
heir "of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century... they follow
in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism." (What happened
to Communism, though? Omitted so as not to offend China?)
* The enemy's method: Individuals
from more than 60 countries are recruited, taken mainly to Afghanistan,
trained, then sent to "hide in countries around the world to plot evil
and destruction."
* The enemy's brutality: Its leadership
"commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and
make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children."
* Defining the problem: The airline
hijackings on September 11 constituted an "act of war." They were not crimes,
but part of a concerted military effort by al-Qaida, "a radical network
of terrorists," and the governments supporting it.
But the president also got five
matters wrong:
* The enemy's identity: He avoids
calling America's opponent by its name - militant Islam - preferring euphemisms
such as "terrorist group[s] of global reach." Two problems here: Terrorism
is a tactic, not an enemy; and not explicitly defining the enemy leads
to confusion and dissension.
* The enemy's location: The address
dealt only with foreign threats ("drive them from place to place, until
there is no refuge or no rest," "pursue nations that provide aid or safe
haven to terrorism"), ignoring the more delicate but equally vital US domestic
angle.
The new "Office of Homeland Security"
has not just to protect Americans from foreign attack but extirpate the
enemy within US borders.
* The enemy's appeal: The president
dismissed al-Qaida's version of Islam as a repudiated "fringe form of Islamic
extremism."
Hardly. Muslims on the streets of
many places - Pakistan and Gaza, in particular - are fervently rallying
to the defense of al-Qaida's vision of Islam. Likewise, the president's
calling the terrorists "traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect,
to hijack Islam" implies that other Muslims see them as apostates, which
is simply wrong.
Al-Qaida enjoys wide popularity;
the very best the US government can hope for is a measure of Muslim neutrality
and apathy.
* US goals: These are inconsistent.
"Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaida who hide
in your land" implies that were the Afghan authorities to hand over a few
individuals, the war effort would end, with no further concern about militant
Islam. Contrarily, saying that the war effort will continue until "every
terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" implies
an ambitious effort against the forces of militant Islam. This contradiction
contains the seeds of future problems. Bush needs to clarify that the latter
is his real goal.
* US foreign policy: "From this
day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will
be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This unrealistic
bifurcation will not work in the real world of messy and competing interests.
Preventing terrorism may seem like the only priority this week but it's
not likely to maintain such total paramountcy for long, and making policy
on this basis will lead to problems.
In short, while the president showed
an excellent understanding of militant Islam - calling it totalitarian
was especially important - he shied away from specifying it as the enemy
and made unrealistic statements about the nature of the struggle ahead.
These mistakes need urgently to be fixed, before they do damage.
