Following September 11, 2001, the United States has defined its counterterrorism policy as a “war on terrorism” and in line with this definition and perception, the US has invaded Afghanistan first, Iraq second, and once again Afghanistan. As time has passed, the US has expanded its global war on terrorism both geographically and diplomatically.
The Bush administration has established its counterterrorism concept based on a “two-axle hypothesis,” which, in other words, was an “either you are with us or against us” perception. Accordingly, the US has only been able to achieve a limited level of applicable international cooperation. Its counterterrorism policy has been organized solely on the basis of countering the financing and human resources of terrorist organizations, and deterring and destructing terrorists’ communication and support networks worldwide, all of which have been targeting the terrorists.
For those who have favored this strategy, it could have been a sign of weakness for the US to treat the terrorism problem using other methods since the terrorists have killed civilians indiscriminately, and have employed violence as a way of communication. Therefore, the best strategy for them was to make the terrorists pay for what they have done. As a matter of fact, the same people then served in the Bush administration and are harshly criticizing Obama for his “more dialogue and cooperation with other countries approach” on the basis of his being very soft on terrorists which, for them, will encourage the terrorists. The past Bush policies on counterterrorism might have been considered as very effective in the short run, but in the long run those policies have strengthened the terrorists’ cause and motivation.
In fact, there are several examples which have shown that policies based on gaining physical ground in countering terrorism have resulted in limited success. In that respect, in sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan the purpose is to cover more territories through the widening presence of the military. But so far, that strategy has brought nothing but increased casualties.
Counterterrorism Experience of the US
Compared to the United Kingdom, Turkey, or Spain, the US can be considered a new starter in countering terrorism. When counterterrorism experiences of different countries are examined, almost every country, including democratic countries, have initially attempted to solve the terrorism problem by solely relying on military or security measures. As a reflection of that approach, deterring, stopping or killing more terrorists have been considered a measure of success. Just like the former ones, the US has also utilized measures which have been expected to deter terrorists, and those measures can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, to date, it has been realized that those policies have been nothing more than psychological relief for the administrations.
When counterterrorism experiences are analyzed, it is reasonable to claim that there is a trend or a process of shifting from the use of security oriented policies, which can be classified as ‘countering the terrorist’ to focusing on the underlying causes of terrorism, which can be defined as countering ‘terrorism’. This process is not a paradigm shift which involves preferring the former over the later; rather, it is the natural necessity of solving the terrorism problem which encompasses a variety of dimensions. The security dimension only covers some aspects of countering terrorism.
In other words, effective and result-oriented counterterrorism policies should involve both countering the terrorists and problems and issues which might be exploited by the terrorists. Because the US’ counterterrorism policies have mainly been based on wiping out the terrorism threat, it is fair to say that the US is still in the “countering the terrorist” phase.
Terrorism Threat Targeting the US
When the scope of terrorism, content of the threat, structure of the terrorist organizations, ideological disclosure, recruitment methods and sources are examined, the level of the terrorism threat that the US has been facing can be realized. Here, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “Al Qaeda connected organizational structures.” These structures can be labeled by different names. More often, the members of these groups name themselves after the location where they are active, a hero or a high profile from history, or they take the names of a “martyr (a member of the group who may have been killed in an operation)”. For example, the groups who are active in Yemen call themselves “Al Qaeda in Arab Peninsula.”
There are some common characteristics of those terrorist organizations. They have developed an eclectic ideology which might involve statements, arguments, and propagative disclosures, and discussions, through which they smother the real understanding and readings of any religion or belief. In that way, the terrorists are able to exploit religious believes. Regardless of their country of origin, language, or ethnic background, they can develop similar approaches, and they have almost unlimited mobility and flexibility in terms of their targets and justification for the killing of innocent people.
For example, while Osama bin Laden could exploit the US’ and Western countries’ foreign policies towards the Muslim world to attack the US, Mehmet Dogan, who has recently been arrested in connection with Al Qaeda elements in Turkey has claimed that the people who are in power in Turkey do not represent Islam; and by doing so, he could develop an understanding of alienating the people in Turkey, whom he thought could be targeted.
Almost every issue, incident, or development can be utilized by the terrorists to justify their actions. In their mind, they can alienate the rest of society from the members of the organization, and they become the other side of society. In other words, they become the “true believers” while they stigmatize the rest of the people as the infidels. Then the so-called “us versus them” perception will come to the surface and will dominate their whole life. Once they identify and define their targets, it will be justifiable to use any means to destroy them.
A Need for Paradigm Shift
In order for the US to get ahead of “the phase of countering terrorist” and to start “the phase of countering terrorism” and finally develop “countering strategies through ideological means,” the US will need a paradigm shift. For the US to accomplish a paradigm shift, first and foremost, it must change its perception towards the terrorism problem. A counterterrorism strategy that is limited to threat based, incident oriented, limited preventive strategies, programs, and implementations which only cover deterring, preventing, or stopping terrorist attacks will only counter the outcome or results of the underlying causes of the terrorism problem.
The US will need a new approach which does not only focus on the risks emanating from the terrorism threat. This can be achieved through studies and projects focusing on problems and issues that have been exploited by the terrorists to construct new identities and recruit new members. However, these programs and strategies should be developed with the local people through sincere and real communication and cooperation. In fact, such work has been going on for a long time, but with a limited scope and capacity. These projects and programs have been overshadowed by the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and discussions about the body scanners at the airports.
How to Manage the Paradigm Shift in Countering Terrorism
This is not an easy task. There are several obstacles and issues before the US to attain a kind of paradigm shift in countering terrorism that Turkey has succeeded in. First of all, that paradigm shift requires all the parties in countering terrorism to be on the same page, meaning they need to appreciate such a necessity and be determined to accomplish that. Secondly, they need to internalize the values, understanding, and perceptions of the paradigm shift. Thirdly, regardless of what is ahead of them, they need to stick with the requirements of it. That being said, it will be a painful and risky process politically, psychologically, culturally, and socially since from the very beginning the US has been relying on military forces in fighting against terrorism. Therefore, the security apparatus, including agencies, departments, and individuals will resist such a change. To make things more difficult, the opposition parties, media, and interest circles will do anything to reverse that paradigm shift. Again, one of the claims that will predominantly be used will be the so called ‘’Obama’s softness and weakness against those who threatened the US.” This statement will create a psychological pressure on the Obama administration and Obama himself which may lead them to stray from the middle course to an extreme one.
Room to be Optimistic
However, there is a room to be optimistic. First of all, Obama himself believes in other ways to fight the struggle against terrorism and the problems the terrorists have been exploiting. Secondly, there are examples of the best and worst counterterrorism experiences from which the US can take from. For example, Turkey can be a good source through its experiences in countering terrorist organizations which are exploiting religion. Additionally, some of the programs and projects developed by the UK to de-radicalize individuals can also be taken as an example.
Moreover, the US should enable moderate voices and approaches to be heard. It can also play an intermediary role or assist those moderate voices to make them more visible and powerful. The US should appreciate the fundamental values, culture, history, and added values of the people in, for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other place where the US considers problematic. In this respect, Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s approach can be taken as a starting point. In his remarks at the NATO’s unofficial defense ministers meeting he said that the historical acquisition and added values of the Afghani people should be appreciated and should be instrumental for successful reconstruction efforts in that country. Gul’s remarks should also be implemented in Iraq and elsewhere. The essence of his perception is that instead of imposing values to these countries, the main course of action should be increasing the life qualities of these people through integrating and empowering the togetherness amongst them via their own historical values.
The terrorists’ only asset is violence, anger, fear and illegitimate use of any means necessary for them to achieve their ideology. On the other hand, a legitimate state does not have that luxury, and they should not fall into a trap in which they employ similar tactics just like the terrorists. Therefore, governments should avoid falling into such a trap by following the rules of law, respecting and appreciating human rights and values. In addition, they should make the moderate voices heard by the mainstream societies in both problematic areas as well as in the Western countries, including the US. While the ground for the terrorists are narrowed through focusing on policies of countering terrorism, the voices of hope and peace should be set up. From that standpoint, there is long way ahead of the US.
What Does the Uludere Incident Pledge for a Democratic Future?
