DEBATING THE WAR ON TERROR THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS TERROR

DEBATING THE WAR ON TERROR THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS

TERROR AS EXISTENTIAL THREAT THE WAR ON TERROR HAS PROMPTED AN ACADEMIC AND POLICY DEBATE WHICH CONSIDERS; • THE LONG TERM ENEMY OF THEWEST • THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 9/11 • HOW TO THINK ABOUT THE WAR ON TERROR

THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS • PROPOSED BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGDON IN 1997 THIS THEORY PREDATES 9/11 AND THE WAR ON TERROR. • IT WAS PART OF A SEARCH BYSECURITY STUDIES SCHOLARS TO IDENTIFY THE NEXT LONG TERM THREAT TO THE WEST AFTER THE COLD WAR. • IT MAINTAINS THAT NATIONS WILL BE COME MORE DIVIDED CULTURALLY AS IDENTITY POLITICS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT IN GLOBAL RELATIONS. • IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE NATURE OF WHERE THREAT WILL MOST LIKELY COME FROM.

ISLAM AND THE WEST • HUNTINGDON ARGUES THAT THERE ARE MANY CULTURES PRESENT IN THE WORLD BUT THAT ISLAM IS THE TROUBLESOME ONE. • HE ARGUES IT ENCOURAGES A LOYALTY TO THE RELIGION THAT SUPPLANTS THE NATION STATE, IS HOSTILE TOWARDS IDEAS SUCH AS DEMOCRACY, LIBERTY, INDIVIDUALISM AND UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS. • THIS MAKES IT INCOMPATIBLE WITHWESTERN VALUES AND HE ARGUES IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS.

CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS & 9/11 • HUNTINGDON'S WORK CAUSED A FURIOUS DEBATE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD FROM 1997 ONWARDS BUT 9/11 MADE THE BOOK A BEST SELLER. • IT APPEARS TO EXPLAIN RADICAL ISLAM’S APPROACH TO THEWEST AND OFFERS US A PARADIGM THROUGH WHICH GROUPS SUCH ASAQ AND ISIS MAKE SENSE. • OSAMA BIN LADEN’S RHETORIC FULLY SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF A CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS AND HE OFTEN PORTRAYEDISLAM AS BEING AT WAR WITH THEWEST.

ISIS AND CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS • AQ ATTEMPTED TO PORTRAY IT’S CONFLICT AS A CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS AND WANTED THE MUSLIM WORLD TO SEE ITSELF AT WAR WITH THEWEST. • ISIS HAS BEEN MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL IN PROMOTING THIS VIEW AND HAS SUCCESSFULLY CONVINCED LARGE NUMBERS OF MUSLIMS IN THE WEST (FOREIGN FIGHTERS) AND THEEAST (LOCAL SUPPORT). • IS IT BENEFICIAL TO CONTINUE THIS VIEW OR DOES IT PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF ISIS?

CRITICISMS OF THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS • MIGHT EXPLAIN RADICAL ISLAM’S APPROACH TO THEWEST BUT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE WEST’S APPROACH TO ISLAM – ESPECIALLY THE PROTECTION OFMUSLIMS IN BOSNIA 1995 & KOSOVO 1999. • ASSUMES THAT DEMOCRACY AND UNIVERSAL RIGHTS DO NOT APPEAL TOISLAMIC CITIZENS – THIS DOES NOT FIT WITH ARAB SPRING. • ALSO PORTRAYS ISLAM AS HOMOGENOUS AND DOES NOT SUNNI AND SHIA BRANCHES. RECOGNISE THE ENMITY BETWEEN

THE END OF HISTORY • HUNTINGDON’S WORK HAD PARTLY BEEN PROMPTED AS A RESPONSE TOFRANCIS FUKUYAMA’S END OF HISTORY THESIS, PROPOSED IN 1992. • FUKUYAMA ARGUED THAT WITH THE FALL OF THESOVIET UNION SIGNALLED THE TRIUMPH OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM. • THIS MEANT THE END OF HISTORY AS HISTORY IS THE STORY OF THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETY TOWARDS AN IDEAL FORM OFGOVERNMENT. • LIBERAL DEMOCRACY EQUALS PEACE, ORDER AND PROSPERITY.

FUKUYAMA AND 9/11 • 9/11 APPEARS TO UNDERMINE THE END OF HISTORY IDEA RAS ADICAL ISLAM DOES NOT SEEK LIBERAL DEMOCRACY OR CAPITALISM. • ARGUABLE THAT AQ AND ISIS REPRESENT A BACKLASH AGAINST LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. • EVEN THE ARAB SPRING BOUGHT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS LIKE THEMUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO POWER.

WWIV AND NORMAN PODHORETZ • ORIGINALLY A LEFT WING INTELLECTUALPODHORETZ BROKE RANKS AND MOVED ACROSS TO THE RIGHT. • HE HAS ARGUED THAT THEWAR ON TERROR SHOULD BE THOUGHT OF IN TERMS OF EPOCHALLENGES TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. • THE PREVIOUS CHALLENGES HAVE ALL BEEN TOTALITARIAN AND ARE KNOWN AS THE WORLD WARS; WWI - CENTRE RIGHT/ WWII – FAR RIGHT/ WWIII (COLD WAR) –FAR LEFT.

WAR ON TERROR AS WWIV • WWIV STARTED ON 9/11 WHENISLAMO-FACISM ATTACKED THE U. S. BUT THE STAGE WAS SET FOR THE CONFLICT OVER THE PRECEDING 20 YEARS. • THIS WAR MAY BE AGAINSTISLAMO-FACISM BUT IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ENEMY FACED IN THE PAST 3 WORLD WARS. • MUCH OF THE PROBLEM COMES FROM THE RELUCTANCE OF PRESIDENTS PREG - EORGE W. BUSH TO USE MILITARY FORCE TO DEAL WITH TERRORISTS.

TERRORISM AS EXISTENTIAL THREAT • THIS CONFLICT SQUARELY CASTS AMERICA AS FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND TOLERANCE. • IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROGRESS OF THE WORLD THATWWIV IS AN AMERICAN VICTORY AS FAILURE WILL SEE MORAL RELATIVISM BECOME THE NORM. • AMERICA AND THE WEST MUST BE WILLING TO STAND UP FOR THEIR VALUES AND GO THE DISTANCE – 40/50 YEARS WORTH.

ISSUES WITH WWIV • AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, LIBYA ALL PROVE THAT WHILSTAMERICA CAN DEFEAT GROUPS MILITARILY IT DOES NOT HAVE THE VISION OR POLITICAL WILL TO STAY. • IF THE WWIV NARRATIVE IS ADOPTED THEN WE ESSENTIALLY ADOPT COC AND HAVE TO FACE UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OFISLAM. • WOULD ALSO ENTAIL FACING UP TO DIFFICULT TRUTHS AROUNDMIDDLE EASTERN ‘ALLIES’ LIKE SAUDI ARABIA, PAKISTAN AND EGYPT.

GERGES • ARGUED IN HIS BOOK THE RISE AND FALL OF AL QAEDA THAT THE WAR ON TERROR HAS BEEN A MISCALCULATION BY THEUSA. • THE U. S. IS ACTUALLYWEAKER MILITARILY AND INTERNATIONALLY AFTER AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. • THE WAR ON TERROR IS BASED ON THE WRONG ASSUMPTION THAT THEUSA AND THE WEST ARE UNDER CONTINUAL ATTACK FROMRADICAL ISLAM.

BIN LADEN’S GAMBLE • BIN LADEN WAS ATTEMPTING TO HAVE THEUS LASH OUT AGAINST THE UMMA AND THUS FACILITATE THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS. • OUTRAGED AT THIS, THE WORLD’SMUSLIMS WOULD RISE UP AND HELPAQ DEFEAT AMERICA. • DESPITE MUSLIM POLITICS REMAINING DEEPLY ANTI-AMERICAN THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED AND BIN LADEN’S GAMBLE HAS FAILED.

FAILURE OF ‘BIN LADENISM’ • 40% OF THEWORLD’S MUSLIMS DID SUPPORT BIN LADEN’S CRITICISMS OF AMERICA BUT ACTIVELY REJECTED HIS TERRORIST METHODS. • IT WAS ONLY THE APATHY, NOT SUPPORT, OF THIS SILENT MAJORITY WHICH ALLOWED AQ TO SHAPE THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE PRESENT WITHINISLAM. • DESPITE HAVING SUPPORTED THE VIEWS OF BINLADENISM OUT OF ANGER THE CATEGORICAL MILITARY DEFEAT IN AFGHAN HAS LED TO A REALISATION IT WAS EMPTY RHETORIC.

IRAQ AS A STEP BACKWARDS? • GERGES ARGUMENTS HOLD TRUE UP UNTIL THE INVASION OFIRAQ AS THE TIGHTLY IDENTIFIED GOALS ENABLED THE MUSLIM WORLD TO ACCEPT THEGWOT. • INVADING IRAQ WIDENED THE SCOPE OF THEGWOT AND HAS UNLEASHED CHAOS IN THE REGION. • LACK OF CLEAR GOALS HAS PLAYED INTO THE HANDS OFISLAMIST PROPAGANDISTS AND CEDED THE NARRATIVE TO THEM.

CHOMSKY – ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE • PERHAPS THE WAR ON TERROR IS AN NEO-IMPERIAL PROGRAMME DESIGNED TO FURTHER AMERICAN POLITICAL INTERESTS. • BY INVADING THE MIDDLE EAST AMERICA GAINS PHYSICAL AND STRATEGIC CONTROL OVER THE ENERGY SUPPLIES RESIDENT THERE. • THE GWOT HAS FAILED TO ACHIEVE ITS MOST BASIC REQUIREMENT AS IT HAS INCREASED THE NUMBER OF TERRORIST ATTACKS.

DEEP STATE • THIS FAILED GWOT SERVES POLITICAL PURPOSE IN THAT IT ALLOWS FOR A CONTINUED RHETORIC OF THREAT TO BE USED. • IN TURN THIS JUSTIFIES INCREASED DEFENCE SPENDING, WHICH SENDS VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY DIRECTLY INTO MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS WHICH THEN ENDORSE FUTURE POLITICIANS. • THIS ‘DEEP STATE’ THEN HAS THE ABILITY TO FURTHER PROMOTE THEIR DESIRED AIMS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE WISHES OF THE POPULACE.