Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

'War On Terror' is being lost, says pundit. Well, duh...

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:58 / 09.09.03

From AOL :

THE US and her allies are losing the war on terror, with al-Qaida growing in power, a British academic claims.

A report for the Oxford Research Group by Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University said that more than 350 people had been killed in attacks linked to al-Qaida since September 11, 2001.

Rather than military action succeeding in crippling the terror group, al-Qaida has rallied its efforts, said Prof Rogers.

"The organisation and its associates have managed to plan and often undertake a remarkable range of activities, with these collectively showing a capability that exceeds that existing before the September 11 attacks.

"On this basis alone, it is difficult to accept any claim that the war on terror is being won," said his report, which includes what was claimed to be a comprehensive list of al-Qaida's terror strikes.

He added that Afghanistan was "further away from stability than ever" and that the "occupying troops" in Iraq simply represented 140,000 targets for terrorist attacks.

There was a "wide-ranging perception" that the mass murder of 3,000 people on September 11 was a real human tragedy "but took place in a world in which 5,000 children die every day from diarrhoea and related causes".

He added: "Two years after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we have to face up to an international situation in which current approaches are inappropriate and ineffective, and may be leading to more intractable problems.

"Al-Qaida has grown in strength over the past two years.

"Military victory over the Taliban was achieved by the provision of large quantities of armaments to Northern Alliance forces, with these armaments subsequently cascading through warlord militias in post-war Afghanistan, strengthening the power of individual warlords and diminishing that of the putative government of Hamid Karzai."

Geez, next there'll be no Santa Claus.

10:08 / 10.09.03

The point being, of course, that George Bush and Tony Blair are constantly telling the world that the War on Terror is being won, and a lot of people are going to be happy with that. To have such a well known and respected academic as Paul Rogers issue a study saying that isn't the case actually is news for a lot of people.

10:43 / 10.09.03

Chances are people who believe the US is winning the war on terror will go right on believing it until the next attack. Which might not be long... September 11th is tomorrow....brrr.

It's a war that was destined to be lost. How can you fight an abstract concept? As long as terrorism gets the job done, the job being sowing terror, then terrorism will continue. The US has used it to great effect, though they didn't call it terrorism, obviously. Besides, when has the US ever won a "War on blank"? War on drugs, anybody? Yeah, it takes me a whole half-hour to find a bag. War on hunger? Last I heard people were still starving. And so on...

Bin Laden has stated that a black wind will soon wash over America. Stolen Canadian boats have been found washed up on the Washington coast. If you're religious, pray for us.

10:51 / 10.09.03

we should put the war on a terror in a time capsule and send it to the people in 2500. at least that way *they'll* know what they are up against.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

11:58 / 10.09.03

Ultimately, the reason you can't win the 'War on Terror' is that you can't fight something by doing more of it. When for years, Superpower relations were predicated on Mutually Assured Destruction, and when NATO's might is tacitly backed by NBCs; when we practice tactics openly intended to overawe and dismay the enemy and use weapons of extraordinary power to demonstrate our total control of the battle-space as much as to assert that control - how is can we expect to eliminate terror as a political tool? We use terror.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:14 / 10.09.03

Yeah, it's all become somewhat grey(er than usual) recently. If, as the old cliche goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, then what happens when YOU DON'T KNOW IF A COUNTRY'S AT WAR OR NOT? Are (for example) attacks on UK/US troops in Iraq acts of terrorism? Or have they just not believed Bush when he said the war was over?
In which case, what is the status of the UN? If, as "we" like to believe, the war was won MONTHS ago, then they're a valuable aid to the people "we" liberated.
If the war is still ongoing, they're a part of an occupying force. (Don't get me wrong, here, I'm not dissing the UN at all... the bombing was a slap in the face to EVERYBODY... apart from anything else, the UN hadn't even approved the war- they come in afterwards to try to help, and get fucked for it. BUT... if that war had been against MY country, whether I liked or loathed the regime, and had seemingly been indiscriminate in its choice of targets, then I think I might have gone the "blowing shit up" route. When it's all you have...?)

Can't remember who wrote the article I read this in, but the general gist was that this WASN'T another Vietnam, despite what all us commie pinko peaceniks warned about. But it could well be another Chechnya.

13:49 / 10.09.03

As Paul Rogers points out in his piece, why should al Qaida bother to attack the US when America conveniently puts 140,000 targets right in the centre of one of the most unstable countries in the Middle East with porous borders and a society in flux.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

14:12 / 10.09.03

Good points Sax, and your right that it was a bit of a turn up on AOL of all places.

I'm sure a few of you guys know this site anyway, but if not it is a fairly balanced source of alternative news without the worst ecxcesses of the card-carrying paranoids.