2009 was the year when the economic crisis was the most publicized issue in terms of global problems. The deaths and violent incidents in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have become ordinary issues. An analysis of 2009 in terms of terrorism and global security is important to create a projection for 2010.
Before doing that it will be helpful to have an overview about problems in countering terrorism. Terrorism became an international threat in and has attracted international community’s attention since the 1960s. But since11 September 2001 terrorism has been considered a global threat and new steps have been taken to counter terrorism.
The way the United States has responded to the terrorism threat is unprecedented. The US’ main course of action in countering terrorism has involved disrupting and destroying the terrorist organization’s infrastructure, financing networks, holding responsible the individuals and countries that are believed to be harboring and hiding terrorists. It was a kind of making them pay for what they caused as a result of 9/11 attacks.
In accordance with that strategy, the US initiated the invasion in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and the US has been blamed for several violations of fundamental human rights, which caused an immense reaction around the world.
The reasoning behind the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq by the US and the United Kingdom was to destroy terrorists and those who were supporting or hiding them. The purpose was to minimize the threat if not to totally destroy it.
While it is not easy to measure the level of success, one might claim that the US not having been attacked by terrorists could be a sign success. Is such a claim acceptable? The following section, in fact, will try to grasp an answer to this question.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan…What is next?
One of the aims of the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan was to bring “democracy” to these countries. In fact Bush claimed that he was to liberate Iraq from tyranny of Saddam’s regime. However, in light of the conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is too early to accept Bush’s claim. On the contrary we have ample evidence to say otherwise.
Despite an enormous effort by the US or “the coalition of willing”
· There is still a risk of clashes between Sunnis and Shiites, if not it is an obvious reality.
· In the Northern part of Iraq, Kurds are still looking for ways of independence even though they are taking steps slowly and cautiously.
· There is a big risk of another conflict between Iraq and its neighbors, Iran and Syria, due to border disputes, emanating from violations.
In Afghanistan on the other hand
· Karzai’s administration has failed to show signs of self-governance of the country. While he was expected to handle corruption in his country, he and his team became a focal point of corruption allegations.
· There have been several civilian casualties due to NATO’s operations or so-called “friendly fire”.
· The NATO forces have failed to respond to drug production and trafficking in Afghanistan.
· While Afghanistan has not been stabilized, a second front, Pakistan, has been opened. In 2009 these regions were the central focus in terms oftheir unstable political environment. The past year seems to transfer similar political conditions to the year of 2010.
The facts summarized above indicate that the purposes of invading Afghanistan and Iraq have not been realized. Moreover one of the critical claims by Obama during his election campaign is now being tested. He claimed that military options should be limited, but now considering the situation in Afghanistan he decided to send 30,000 additional troops to this country. The rationale for this decision is based on the argument that having more troops will enable the US to gain more ground and to counter Taliban and Al Qaeda elements. The other side of the coin should also be considered: having an increased military presence in the country will increase the likelihood of having more casualties in the US military.
Despite Pervez Musharraf transferring the administration to civilians, Butto’s death after a bomb attack and incidents afterwards, the Taliban elements’ stronger position in the country pushed Pakistan to the brink of turmoil. The risk of Pakistan being a country of violence and turmoil increased the concerns.
The US has lost almost 4,500 military personnel in Iraq; while the UK has not committed the same level of military personnel, it is the second country carrying the burden in Iraq. Just like in 2009, in 2010, these two countries are and will be the main targets of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization and elements networking with Al Qaeda.
Considering the losses of civilians due to friendly fire, it is fair to claim that not only the military casualties but also civilian casualties will increase. The only thing that can be done is to expect that this won’t be the case. If we add the civilian death toll in Pakistan arising from military operations by the US and Pakistani forces, such actions will increase the likelihood of having more and more people who will be victimized. This, in the end, will help the terrorists, not the forces trying to destroy the terrorists.
Continuing violence in Iraq still serves as a breeding ground for counter violence and terrorism. It is now a reality that counter violence in Iraq is a naked fact. One may claim that violence in Iraq does not hurt the Americans or British. But a culture of violence and counter-violence will enable the terrorists to recruit more individuals who will be used as terrorists against the US and the UK in the long run.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and who is next…Yemen?
The recent developments have increased the expectation that the next target of counterterrorism efforts will be Yemen. US counterterrorism efforts have been limited to Afghanistan and Iraq, but this is not the case anymore. Abdul Faruk Omer Abdulmuttalib, the son of a wealthy businessman in Nigeria, tried to execute a suicide attack on Delta Airlines. The 9/11-like incident triggered the fears of the community in the US. While counterterrorism efforts have been considered invasions overseas, this incident pulls the attention back to the US. People, including the policy makers, criminal justice apparatus, and the public started to discuss the security breach in the intelligence and aviation security. Even claims about Obama’s soft position toward countering terrorism have become a major issue.
The incidents, including Nigerian Abdul Faruq Omer Abdulmuttalib’s attempted suicide attack, another attempted murder against Kurt Westergaad, who ignited the cartoon crisis in the world, and suicide attack that killed almost 100 people in Pakistan, have refreshed the world community’s memory about the threat of terrorism.
Nowadays terrorism, which left its top place to the economic crisis in 2009, is a strong candidate, unfortunately, to reclaim its former position in 2010. Also, the coming days will be a test for Obama and his administration on whether he can show his dedication and determination to hold to his promises. Not giving Abdulmuttaliba trial in a military court is a good sign for the Obama administration.
A comprehensive, multi-faceted, Ideological counterterrorism is needed…
The US considers terrorism a global threat, for which it has developed what it calls the “war on global terrorism” concept. The invasions, preemptive or preventive strikes, implementations (interrogation techniques, human rights violations, etc.) forcing the borders to be drawn by international law, and the like have been put into practice and justified what the US refers to as “bringing the war to the terrorists.” But considering the facts above that may not be the case. In fact terrorism, threatening the West in general and in particular the US and the UK, has not just emerged from Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen. Neither the manpower nor the infrastructures of terrorist networks are limited to these countries.
If one looks at the problem closely, there is no single Afghani individual who has initiated a terrorist attack against the interest of the US outside of Afghanistan. Another example from the attacks on 7/7/2005 in London brought the attention to the same issue. The individuals who carried out the attacks were British citizens and they were born in UK, and raised, in principle, in British culture. These individuals were not experiencing pain and suffering similar to that of the Afghanis, but some kind of identity construction has taken place somewhere along the line. But that process is not limited to only going to Pakistan or Afghanistan. In other words, countering the terrorism threat is not limited to geographical areas, but should be considered as an ideology which could be embraced by other individuals outside of the conflict areas. So the main strategy should not be targeting the countries, groups, or individuals, it should also include a counter-message.
Radicalization is a process through which an individual goes through a construction of an identity. The ideology and disclosure of the ideology of Al Qaeda is not a single statement or constructed body of ideas. Rather they are eclectic statements and ideas, purposefully selected from a vast variety of sources. It cannot be possible to counter such an ideology by just trying to wipe out of the individuals who are using it or who are being used by the terror networks.
Today Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Yemen through a different format, are examples of countering terrorism by solely security related measures. If there are other measures that have been taken, it is obvious that terrorists are better in position to de-grading the constructive efforts by the target countries. In other words, countries struggling against terrorism are unable to convince the individuals vulnerable to terrorist recruitment. One thing is clear, and that is countering the terrorists by killing or capturing them will not result in countering the problems that are creating terrorism. Depending on solely military options will strengthen the infrastructure for recruiting more terrorists since during these so-called operations against terrorist tactics, security or military personnel could make many fatal mistakes, which in turn can be exploited by the terror networks. Countering terrorists will not be enough. So, again, the best strategy will be countering the ideology of the terrorist as well.
Otherwise the countries, countering terrorist will put themselves in a position where they will follow the terrorists and will be led by terrorist incidents. Today it is Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, tomorrow who knows. Widening the geographical area of military operations will provide ample opportunity for the terror networks to have new and fresh excuses to recruit more individuals.
Avoiding such a mistake can only be possible through focusing on and bringing about new strategies, policies, and ideas that will focus on the fundamental reasoning behind terrorism. This route is a long way, and terrorist will do anything to marginalize these efforts.
What Does the Uludere Incident Pledge for a Democratic Future?
