By Stephen J. Coulthart
The “”Greatest Generation”” had the encroaching Axis powers to deal with. The Baby Boomers stared down the barrel of mutually assured destruction. Now the current generation is faced with the persistent threat of terrorism.
Perhaps nowhere else is the damage of terrorism felt more intensely than in the Middle East. Supported by some governments and viciously suppressed by others, terrorism is pervasive in almost every state throughout the Middle East. Terrorist attacks increased by 783% per year in the Arab World (excluding Iraq) between September 12, 2001-March 2003 according to a survey by the Rand Corporation.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the US remains vulnerable to unconventional attack domestically and continues to act as a catalyst for terrorist attacks internationally. Terms such as “”War on Terror”” have been used incessantly for almost a full six years since 9-11 and we still have difficulty describing these terms. American media and politicians have taken the easy road and identified these networks in simplistic terms: both in regard to their nature and their goals. This generalises the position of armed Islamic groups, falsely suggesting that there is a one-size-fits-all solution.
The fact that approximately 90% of American military forces are still geared to fight conventional threats, according to professor and strategist John Arquilla, is distressing. This readiness suggests that the United States is still using a one-dimensional solution to a more complex problem. Conventional military muscle covers only one small piece of the puzzle needed to complement other strategies that do not require violence or territorial occupation. Alternate and more appropriate long-term solutions are needed, and quickly.
One of the reasons armed Islamic groups continue to foster populist support is the welfare services they provide. Hizbullah in Southern Lebanon provides a powerful example of a network with a strong charitable arm. In Lebanon, Hizbullah is not viewed as a terrorist organisation, as it is seen by the West, but as a resistance group that provides essential daily services. It should come as no surprise when the Israeli army destroys a neighbourhood in a strike to kill Hezbollah fighters that the population will always favour those they see as benefactors.
Helping struggling Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon provide those services is one alternative strategy. Clearly, if the political will existed in the US, such a task of empowering states to provide essential services is by no means out of reach. On average the US spends roughly half of worldwide military spending (402 billion USD, FY 2005). With such vast resources at America”s disposal there should be little doubt that US foreign policy could facilitate the rise of essential services in states where radical organisations have filled the void. The benefits would be twofold: not only would the humanitarian aims be achieved by providing these services but the goodwill fostered over the long term by these programs would damage populist terrorist support.
Another alternative action involves the banning of torture. Historically the US has always touted that it has taken the moral highroad in world affairs, but in the past five years the Bush administration’s human rights record has left even staunch international allies shaking their collective heads in disbelief. Repeatedly, the US has been cited with numerous international violations regarding torture: from Guantanamo to secret prison programs. As Peter Bergen wrote in his book The Osama Bin Laden I Know, it was in Egyptian torture cells that the first seeds of Al Qaeda were sown.
On a worldwide scale, a strong diversion away from the unilateral foreign policies of the past five years is necessary. In the new clash of extremist organisations and states, cooperation is now as important as it was to maintain a large military during the Cold War years. In America at the Crossroads, Francis Fukuyama laments the shortcomings of such policies. In its place he suggests a realistic Wilsonianism that calls for “”a dramatic demilitarisation of American foreign policy and reemphasis on other types of policy instruments””. As Fukuyama points out it was through the use of military force that the proverbial bee hive in Iraq was unleashed.
Clearly, there are many new strategies that have yet to be thought of, for it is today”s youth that will inherit the leadership positions of the Cold Warriors and ultimately make the necessary adjustments in American foreign policy. The greatest possible hope for a more peaceful and stable world is that these new leaders grasp the importance of a foreign policy that is not aggressive and militarily dependent.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
* Stephen Coulthart is a graduate student studying diplomacy and international affairs at the Whitehead School of Diplomacy at Seton Hall in New Jersey. Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews)