A Slow Motion World War?
“We will confront
this mortal danger to all humanity.
We will not tire or rest until the war
on terror is won.”
This is what President Bush said on
October 6 at Washington, during his
major and most comprehensive address
to date on his ‘War on Terrorism’,
in identifying the defeat of Islamic
radicalism as a central undertaking
of the 21st century. In what the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette editorial of October 8
termed “the most ominous line
of the speech”, Bush said that
“against such an enemy there is
only one effective response. We will
never back down, never give in and never
accept anything less than complete victory.”
At the same time, he conceded that “our
enemy is utterly committed”. In
other words, Bush presented a formula
for permanent war.
It may be germane, however, to identify
what drives radicalism. According to
well-respected scholars, there are five
key reasons:
(i) Occupation of Muslim lands;
(ii) US policies and actions;
(iii) Failure of Muslim elites to project
core aspirations of the people and to
counter-balance negativity against Islam
and Muslims;
(iv) Exclusion of Muslims from the power
structure of global institutions; and
(v) Exempting Israel from international
standards of behavior and applicable
norms under international law.
In his speech, Bush talked of war and
more war without any hint acknowledging
that among the core problems underlying
the current conflicts are the Bush administration’s
own policies and its refusal to bring
this uncritical support for Israel into
the equation. While seeking change in
the Muslim world, America is unwilling
to change – or even to critically
examine – its own policies towards
Israel, which many believe are at the
root of ferment and strife across the
Muslim world.
One thing is clear - “there are
no clear winners.” But to the
extent the US is not winning this self-declared
war, it is losing global peace. Not
to outline a peaceful alternative to
conflict resolution is a failure of
imagination and of statesmanship.
Says Senator Edward Kennedy: “The
president seems to be saying ‘full
speed ahead’ for our current failed
policy in Iraq, when it is abundantly
clear that staying the course is the
wrong course for America”. He
added: “The administration’s
policy has made Iraq a breeding ground
for terrorism, which it was not before
the war, and the American people know
it. His policy has isolated America
in the world, created more recruits
for Al Qaeda and made it harder, not
easier, to win the war on terror”.
In addition, Saudi Foreign Minister
Saud Faisal recently warned the Bush
administration that the situation in
Iraq “is gradually going toward
disintegration”, threatening the
stability of the entire Middle East
region.
While the Iraq front is still in flames,
a move has been made to open yet another
front with Iran. The 2005 Nobel Peace
Prize was awarded to the UN nuclear
watchdog IAEA and its Egyptian director
general Mohamed ElBaradei. As a precursor
of the shape of things to come, Iran
– which has signed the NPT and
is not yet a nuclear power – has
expressed concern over IAEA attempts
to pressure that nation. Meanwhile,
Israel – which has not signed
the NPT and is an undeclared nuclear
power – has hailed IAEA as another
pressure point on Iran’s nuclear
program. Although there is a compelling
need for cooling of temperatures, there
has been no let up in the rising escalation
of tensions.
President Bush is defining the existing
struggle in apocalyptic terms. In his
words, ”The murderous ideology
of the Islamic radicals is the great
challenge of our new century. Yet in
many ways, this fight resembles the
struggle against communism in the last
century.” This is an over-simplification
and misdiagnosis of the current crisis
with no reference to its factual context.
The senior Bush fought in the last days
of World War II. 60 years after the
end of World War II, his son, the junior
Bush, unwittingly may be ushering in
a slow motion world war.
Bush has clearly linked the future of
America with that of the Middle East
by saying “our future and the
future of that region are linked”.
If that is so, it is imperative that
the world leaders rally to de-link the
future from the current apocalyptic
course.
