The War on Terror, or WOT, is a term used by leaders to justify military and security action taken against a perceived threat from those who would destabilize the current World Order. Normally, we think of the protagonists as the liberal democratic West against some fanatical fundamentalist group such as Al Qaeda and its many affiliated organisations. In the popular psyche it is a war between pro-Western Governments against fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
WOT was a term coined after the attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11 where the US declared war against those who would perpetrate such atrocities. WOT has been used to justify actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan, against the Saddamist regime in Iraq, Russian intervention in Chechnya and even by Israel in its military incursions into Lebanon. It has also been used by Western Governments to justify the use of additional resources and additional powers in the name of national security.
Writing now on the day of the cease fire in Southern Lebanon and post the claims by British Government to have foiled one of the largest attempted attacks by terrorists, we can begin to see the outlines of what may occur in the development of this War.
It is clear that Western Governments have tacitly allowed the Israelis to attack and damage Hez Bollah in Southern Lebanon. Similarly, it is clear that Hez Bollah were encouraged by their backers to heightened the tensions in Israel through their various attacks especially when Israel were dealing with the tricky issues raised by Hamas's political victory in the Palestinian election.
On the face of current events, it would appear that the 'West' is winning this war on terror. Hez Bollah's strength has been severely curtailed and the cease fire agreement would appear to emasculate them as a major force in Southern Lebanon. Similarly, the thwarting the latest suicide bombers would suggest that the Western security services are beginning to 'get a handle' on the terrorists. It is telling that both Bush and Blair have highlighted the importance of the intelligence information obtained by Pakistan in foiling this strike.
However, despite these successes, there are sufficient indications from both these events to suggest that the WOT is entering a new phase. Far from defeating the enemy, I believe the West has left their strategic position weaker. There is a mind-set, particularly espoused by the popular press in the West, that the opposition is somehow naïve and unsophisticated. Because they have not the material, military and economic advantages of the West, they will inevitably be defeated. This is both an untrue and a naïve position.
Looking at history, victory has not always accrued to the mightiest. Look at David and Goliath. Look at the battle of Marathon. Examine Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire. Even in the last century, look at how the Communists defeated the Nationalists in China; look at America's defeat in South Vietnam. In all these cases 'weaker 'forces were able to defeat a militarily superior force. Only hubris would allow the West to believe that the Al Qaeda strategists are inferior to the West's military strategists.
There is a saying in military history, "generals always fight the last war". It happened at the beginning WW1 where the generals were planning for a war of manoeuvre and were shocked to be embroiled in continent wide trench warfare. This was despite the clear indications that such attritional battles were likely; The American Civil War and the Crimean War showed how such a style of warfare could easily develop if opponents were reasonably matched. Similarly, at the start of WW2 the British High Command was surprised by the German Blitzkrieg tactics. It is ironic that it was the Wehrmacht strategist who implemented such ideas first proposed by a British military thinker, Basil Liddel-Hart.
I have a sense that the Western strategists, both military and political, are fighting the 'wrong war'. Yes, Western military force is overwhelming in conventional warfare; see how quickly the Allies defeated Saddam in the two Iraq Wars. However, the WOT is not a conventional war. It is asymmetric warfare. The two sides have not similar capabilities. Instead the weaker side has to be smarter as to where and when to attack. Unlike a conventional war, WOT is not a war between nation states nor groupings of nation states. It is a war against a shadowy enemy whose motivations and modus operandi is not conventional military. Indeed, the West has recognised this in that detainees in Guantanamo Bay are not dealt with according to the Geneva Convention.
Unlike a conventional war, it is not clear what the objectives are between the two proponents. When countries and alliance fight a conventional war, it is normally for some economic or political advantage. When one side feels that it has lost too much or it feels its aims cannot be met, we have a possibility of a peace settlement. But in WOT, the West do not know who are their opponents apart from some shadowy figures that represent the high command of Al Qaeda. In conventional warfare, there is always the rhetoric that one side will fight to the last. However, the reality is that the civil population will put pressure on a Government to settle for peace when all hopes are gone. The West's enemy in WOT are not a country but a movement. There are no constituents clamouring for a settlement.
In the WOT conflict both sides seek the utter destruction of the other party. I would guess Al Qaeda seeks implementation of Islamic Law across the whole world. I would guess the West seek the elimination Al Qaeda. Neither side can achieve its objectives through conventional military means.
It would appear the Al Qaeda strategy is to cause disruption to Western Societies by undertaking high-profile attacks on civilian and 'soft' targets to provoke a reaction against the Muslims in those societies. As rift widens between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Muslims become ripe for indoctrination into their revolutionary views and can be enrolled into a jihad. This strategy is simple, plausible and implement-able by a small core of zealots.
The West' strategy on the other hand is neither as clear cut nor as understandable. First of all, what started off as a focused strategy to eliminate Al Qaeda and its associated organisation became enlarged to target all enemies of the West (that is, USA). There was some logic in attacking and invading Afghanistan as it destroyed Al Qaeda training facilities. However when WOT was enlarged to justify the invasion of Iraq and potential action against North Korea and Iran. This became politically, "A Bridge Too Far" and WOT has become a public relations shield for any number of policies. Instead of having a clear strategic objective in WOT, the West have actually made the objectives diffused and impossible to achieve. How do we know when we have won the War On Terror?
There is no obvious connection between the Ba'athist party in Iraq and Al Qaeda. Indeed, Saddam persecuted such Islamists more than any Western state. Not being a Middle East or a Far East specialist, I cannot be sure but I would suspect the regimes in North Korea and Iran are as inimical to Al Qaeda as any Western liberal democracy. So by "moving the goal posts" Western leaders have defused the focus of the WOT.
Imagine the following hypothetical scenario. Suppose an anti-Mugabe group started a bombing campaign against his supporters in Zimbabwe. Further, suppose this group were pro-West. Would the Western governments act against this group under the WOT? Remember, the West would not intervene in Darfur, Sudan or Somalia where the death tolls exceeded 500,000 as oppose to the less than 1,500 civilians killed in the Lebanese conflict. As the Native Americans used to say, "White man speaks with forked tongue!" Indeed the opponents acted against so far in the WOT have been originally supported and nurtured by the American CIA. Saddam was a CIA client as was Osama Bin Laden!
America's and Britain's political cover for Israel in its action against Hez Bollah also sheds light on the West's implementation of it's WOT strategy. Yes, Hez Bollah and Hamas are both organisations that espouse terror tactics but so did the Zionists who later founded Israel. Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister was on the British Protectorate of Palestine's list of wanted terrorists. The Lebanese conflict is an illustration of how the WOT has expanded to mean protecting Western interests. Yes, Hez Bollah did provoke the Israeli attacks but the delays in arranging the cease fire was an attempt by the West to weaken Iranian and Syrian influence in that area. It does not militarily affect the original WOT aim of eliminating Al Qaeda but may, in fact, strengthen Al Qaeda's position.
Although Israel has 'won' the military campaign, it is a pyrrhic victory. All the destruction in Southern Lebanon has done is expanded the base of support for future anti-Israeli and anti-West terrorists. Unless something is done in that area, The Israelis have sown the next generation of suicide bombers. This is a harvest that we will all reap unless we take action. To stop this happening, a 'Marshall Plan' similar to the one in set up to reconstruct Germany after WW2 should be instituted for Lebanon and Palestine.
In the West itself, the heightened awareness of terrorist threats has seen an erosion of tolerance and freedom. Any person wearing traditional Muslim garb is viewed with suspicion and apprehension. States are allocating more resources and taking more powers to 'protect' its citizens. Yet at the same time, we are exhorted to live as 'normal' a life as possible and trust in the police and the security service to look after us. In the UK, we have already shot an innocent man by mistake. Of the about 1,000 arrests made in the UK on anti-terrorists charges less than a handful of these have lead to a successful prosecution. A similar pattern can be found in the US.
So what does this all mean? In warfare, the side that can operate its own strategy and impose that on its opponents will eventually win. In these terms, the strategy of Al Qaeda is working. There is a widening rift between Muslim attitudes and the non-Muslim attitudes in the West. The WOT is not a conventional war but a war of hearts and minds. Sadly, the West is losing this war at the moment. So what can the West do?
First of all, the West must re-examine its strategy, or at least, the implementation of its strategy. Using the WOT as a PR shield when it wishes to act in its own interests just detracts from the potential power to mobilise public opinion. Secondly, it must recognize the WOT's battlefield is in the hearts and minds of all people. Just because the West and its allies can defeat any military force does not mean it can win. There is a real risk that the West can win all its battles but the last. The way forward can be seen from history.
In the battle against insurgents, one of the most successful campaigns in the last century was the British against the communist insurgents in Thailand and Bhutan. Instead of placing massive firepower into the field, the British undertook small patrols in the villages. The soldiers were tasked with winning the hearts and minds of the villagers in the jungle who might be able to harbour the insurgents. Further, funds were made available to help the indigenous population to improve their lot.
In wartime, populations can be mobilised to achieve much despite suffering the effects of war. In the UK, in WW2 manufacturing output in the UK increased despite day and night bombing by the Luftwaffe. Similarly, Harris's 1,000 bomber raids seemed to stiffen the resolve of the German people towards the latter part of WW2. Even in Japan, the US incendiary raids on major Japanese cities did not cause the collapse of civilian morale. It was only using the nuclear weapons that lead to the Government surrendering.
The first thing is not deny that terrorism will not change ordinary individual's lives. It has already and it will profoundly change lives further. It has always been nonsense to pretend that warfare does not affect civilians. If in doubt ask the citizens of London, Dresden or Nanking. If there is a War On Terror, then enrol the peoples and mobilise the population to fight this as a war. The Land Girls and the National servicemen who went into the mines as well as the ordinary workers in reserved jobs were just as instrumental in winning WW2 as the conscripted military personnel!
The second thing is to articulate why the War is being fought. People will not make sacrifices nor perform extraordinary feats unless they believe in the objectives of the War. If the War is a war between conflicting world views, the let us be clear what values the West are upholding in this fight and how that would differ from what the other side would impose.
I suspect this is the real weakness in the West's strategy. It seems that the Islamists have clarity as to what it wants whereas its opponents do not seem to be able to articulate and implement what it wants. This has lead many to suspect that the WOT is used to justify violence and concentration of political power to protect current vested interests. If the WOT is being fought to protect vested interests in the West, then the citizenry will not make the sacrifices that will lead to the defeat of the terrorists.
If the West is fighting to protect "the American way of life and Mom's apple pie etc" then let us be explicit about it. A more interesting set of values would be to protect a tolerant pluralistic society where people would respect each others rights to coexist and provide equal opportunities to all to practice their chosen lifestyles as long as it does not curtail other people's freedoms. Once this is done, all military and political actions should be tested against these values.
I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories normally but because the Western powers have not done the above has lead me to suspect the WOT is being used to protect current vested interests. Why has Haliburton been awarded the majority of the reconstruction contracts in Iraq when both Dick Cheney and George Bush Junior have been executives of that company and George Bush Senior is a shareholder? Why have we seen an erosion of civil liberties on both sides of the Atlantic with the authorities being granted extensive powers of search?
This may be my personal prejudice but I do believe that WOT is not the real war. I believe that the prime movers on both sides, in the West and Al Qaeda we have people who believe that they have right on their side. They know how we should all live and will impose 'what is good for us' whether we like it or not. The real war is not the War On Terror but another battle. The protagonists are all those who want to live in a pluralistic tolerant society delighting in differences between people against those who have a hotline to God or the Absolute truth. The real war is The War Against Idealogues!
David Chan has been a senior executive and a management consultant. He has written amd had published articles on Business Change and has authored a book on new business organisation which will be published in October 2006. He has an interest in strategy, philosophy and science.