|
As we mark the
fifth
anniversary of
the 9/11 attacks
on America, and
we review the
half a decade of
war on terror
since, the
central question
that comes to
the minds of
both experts and
policymakers is
this – who is
winning the war
and where are we
in its
prosecution?
And to refine,
is al Qaeda on
the retreat, is
Afghanistan
working, is Iraq
surviving the
challenge, and
is Lebanon’s
Cedars
Revolution on
the rise or has
it been
defeated? Is
Hezbollah’s war
changing the
U.S. strategy
regarding Iran
and Israel? And
finally, is the
U.S. homeland
secure, or is it
penetrated and
threatened?
All of these are
issues of great
importance to
Americans,
Westerners and
societies
determined to
struggle for
democracy and
freedom. For
even though 9/11
was a benchmark
in the history
of the U.S., it
also became a
rallying date in
the eyes of the
Jihadists for
more lethal
future attacks,
not just in
America, but
also in Europe,
India, Africa
and other parts
of the world
that have tasted
the wrath of
terror since
2001.
The widening of
the war on
terrorism and
the
multiplication
of its
battlefields has
critics claiming
Americans have
been led in the
wrong direction,
and that the
decision to
fight the
terrorists on
their ground was
erroneous. Are
the critics
right? Or are
they wrong?
Five years after
the attacks
which sparked
this long war, a
proper review is
in order – a
review not only
of the enemy we
face, but of the
war we are
engaged in and
what the future
holds in this
regard.
The Road to
9/11
It is first
important to
understand that
the road to 9/11
was the result
of a patient and
perseverant
march by the
Jihadists
Salafists
(including al
Qaeda), at least
since the end of
the Cold War, to
first test and
then engage the
United States
head on.
In the decades
after World War
II, the bulk of
the Sunni
Islamists
concentrated on
the Soviet Union
and communism as
a prime enemy,
not because they
supported a free
market economy
and NATO, but
because they
perceived
atheist
socialism as a
competitor to be
eliminated
first. Wahabism
offered to work
with the
U.S.-led West
against the
Soviets, and
Washington
extended its
support to the
Mujahidin in
Afghanistan.
But as soon as
the U.S.S.R.
collapsed, the
Jihadists
regrouped and
took aim at the
U.S. Their
perception of
the crumbling of
communism in
Russia was based
on the idea that
once they
implemented
their Salafi
form of Sharia
and Jihad,
“Allah would do
the rest.” The
1990s witnessed
their deliberate
ascendancy and
repetitive
attacks: the
first attack on
the twin towers
in 1993; the
attack on the
Khobar towers in
1995; the rise
of the Taliban
in 1996; the
Algerian civil
war, the
Chechnya Jihad,
and the Sudan
massacres; the
1998 U.S.
embassies
attacks in
Africa; the
penetration of
the U.S. by
terror cells;
and finally the
September 11,
2001, terror
strikes, aimed
initially at
provoking a
Madrid-like
collapse in
America.
Meanwhile, the
other Jihadi
powers, Iran and
its extension
Hezbollah, as
well as their
Baathist ally in
Syria, moved on
two fronts –
controlling
Lebanon and
developing
nuclear power.
In parallel,
Hezbollah built
a network of
cells within the
West, while al
Qaeda was
building
theirs.
The Road
Since Then
In the wake of
9/11, the U.S.
led a coalition
to remove the
Taliban from
Afghanistan and
root out al
Qaeda from its
sole real
estate. After
the battles of
Tora Bora,
statesponsored
Salafi Jihadism
was gone (for
the time
being). A
debate then took
place within the
U.S. government
with regard to
the next stages
in the war
against terror.
A strategic
choice was made
to prosecute the
war on the
grounds of what
are essentially
police goals –
finding
terrorist cells,
dismantling
them, and
bringing them to
justice, both
within the U.S.
and worldwide.
This choice was
based on the
fundamental
premise that
there is, for
the lack of a
better term, a
“mother ship”
out there. It is
a ship that is
primarily
ideological and
deeply incrusted
in the
organizations,
regimes, and
networks of
radical clerics.
Al Qaeda is the
product of a
wider, deeper
pool of Wahabism,
Salafism and
Muslim
Brotherhood
movements within
the greater
Middle East and
beyond. The
political
culture they
have produced
for decades has
allowed military
dictatorships to
espouse their
final
objectives,
obstruct
democratization
and sink all
attempts for
peace processes
in the region.
Hence, a second
strategic choice
was also made to
intervene
internationally
within the
sphere of
influence of the
Jihadists. This
intervention
occurred on two
tracks. The
first track was
geared toward
assisting civil
societies
endangered by
violent regimes.
The second track
was geared
toward
delivering a war
of ideas to
delegitimize the
ideologies
promoting
Jihadism and
other forms of
radicalism. At
the same time
this was being
done
internationally,
the U.S.
embarked on a
course to
strengthen its
homeland
security within
its own shores.
The Iraq
Campaign
The debate about
the Iraq
campaign has
signaled a lack
of national
consensus in the
U.S. and the
West as to what
the danger we
face actually is
and how we
should confront
it. While many
elites, still
unengaged in the
war on terror
and still swayed
by the oil
influenced
political
culture of the
1990s, looked at
the invasion of
Iraq as a
strategic
mistake because
of what they
perceived as a
lack of
legitimate
claims
(regarding the
widely reported
presence of
weapons of mass
destruction and
the possible
link of the
Hussein regime
to al Qaeda),
the real aim of
the campaign was
the liberation
of a segment of
Arab and Middle
Eastern society
ruled by a
ruthless
dictator.
As I argued in
my book
Future Jihad,
the U.S.
intervention –
which should
have taken place
a decade earlier
– intercepted
the rise of a
giant Jihadi
bloc stretching
from Afghanistan
to Lebanon
equipped with
non-conventional
arms. Historians
will see it
clearly. The
prosecution of
the liberation
could have been
much better, but
the freeing of
the Kurds,
Shiites and non
pro-Saddam
Sunnis opened
the path for a
dynamic to bear
fruits to be
understood and
seen years from
now.
Elections and
Democracy
Al Qaeda has
been stopped as
a
geographically-based
regime, but it
has still been
able to wage
terrorist
attacks from
Indonesia to
London. The
measurement of
its success and
its failures is
not through the
numbers of
strikes, but by
analyzing the
global and
future growth of
the movement.
The arrests of
terrorists and
break-up of
terror cells in
the U.S.,
Canada, and
elsewhere over
the past years
and recent
months indicate
that a second
generation of
Jihadists is
spreading and
readying to
target American
stability.
Let there be no
doubt -- the
Jihadists are a
patient enemy.
They are
recruiting wider
in their
indoctrinated
pool. However,
let there also
be no doubt that
as a result of
U.S. actions
abroad, the
pool’s future is
now in doubt. If
one observes the
far reaching
effects of the
Afghanistan
elections and
the three Iraqi
votes, the
sociological
consequences are
revolutionary.
In short, there
is no return
backward.
Despite all the
bloody and
barbaric
slaughter by
Zarqawi and his
equivalents
across the
region, the
younger
generations and
women who were
given the
opportunity to
taste and test
the democratic
process have
leaped into
their future. It
will take time
before the
culture of
democracy takes
root in the
civil societies
liberated so
far, and in
those hoping to
be later.
But it is now
proven through
al Qaeda and
other
totalitarian
movements and
regimes that the
lethal enemy of
Jihadism is
democracy.
The Cedars
Revolution
On another
front, and after
32 years of
Syrian
occupation and
Hezbollah
terror,
Lebanon’s Cedars
Revolution in
2005
demonstrated
that in
previously
democratic
societies, the
roots of freedom
can redevelop.
Thanks to the
U.S.-introduced
United Nations
Security Council
Resolution 1559,
which was
approved in 2004
and called on
Syria to
withdraw and
Hezbollah to
disarm, Lebanese
masses from
various
communities
showed the world
and their
occupiers that
popular
democracy
movements can
face off with
military power,
if backed by the
international
community.
But the
semi-success of
Lebanon’s revolt
triggered a
counter attack
by the “axis” of
the Syrian and
Iranian regimes
this year. After
a series of
assassinations
of Lebanese
politicians, the
axis is
provoking a war
with Israel, in
an attempt to
take back the
small country
and bring back
Iranian power
onto the
Mediterranean.
Iran and
Syria
Concerned with
the regime
changes in
Afghanistan and
in Iraq and with
the Cedars
Revolution in
Beirut, Iran
President
Mahmoud
Ahmedinijad
decided to
counter these
developments in
two ways.
First, he
announced his
intention to
acquire nuclear
capabilities,
thereby
signaling that
Tehran would use
nuclear weapons
as a shield
against future
international
support to
domestic
democratic
uprisings.
Secondly,
Ahmedinijad
ordered Hamas
to sink the
peace process
among
Palestinians and
Israelis and
instructed
Hezbollah wreak
havoc in Lebanon
by attacking
Israel.
Forced from
Lebanon and
threatened by
the Hariri
assassination
investigation,
the Assad regime
converged with
Tehran and
Hezbollah on a
regional terror
plan. But both
regimes in Iran
and Syria and
their allied
organizations in
Gaza and Lebanon
have disclosed
their plans
early in the
process, just as
Bin Laden did on
September 11.
They’ve
attacked civil
societies while
democratic
movements are on
the rise. In
Damascus and
Tehran, youth,
women and
reformists have
understood the
message of the
war of ideas.
Despite terror
and bloodshed,
the future is
for them to
struggle for.
War of Ideas
To experts and
historians
alike, it is
clear that the
war on terror is
centering on the
war of ideas.
The ability of
societies ruled
by terror
regimes and
ideologies to
realize the
essence of the
war and what it
means to them is
critical. But
just as critical
is the ability
of the members
of these
societies to
understand that
when the U.S.
and its allies
intervene in a
post 9/11 era,
it is not to
rule over them
and govern their
way of life.
Rather, it is to
free them so
that they can
make the choices
they deem
appropriate.
It is the
ability to make
choices that
will defeat
terrorism, be it
Jihadi or
Baathist. The
struggles in
Afghanistan,
Iraq and Lebanon
today are about
new democracies,
freed by the
U.S. and its
coalition,
attempting to
grow, while
forces of
fascism and
Jihadism are
attempting to
keep them down.
The debate in
Washington needs
to grasp and
aggressively
emphasize that
dimension of the
conflict, for
without this
understanding,
U.S. support for
the real war on
terror will
fade.
And then we
would be playing
into the hands
of an enemy that
is not only
extremely
patient, but
ideologically
deadly, as well.
RF
Dr. Walid
Phares is a
Senior Fellow
with the
Foundation for
the Defense of
Democracies in
Washington. He
is the author of
Future Jihad:
Terrorist
Strategies
Against America. |
