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

Underground > Switchboard >

Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

pointless and uncalled for

08:27 / 29.06.04

Guardian report on Imperial Hubris

On the eve of the release of the a damning condemnation as written by a long-serving (and notably still serving) US Intelligence Service official, The Guardian publishes the above article.

The author, known only as Anonymous, believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

What do you think? Is the Bush led administration being played like a tin whistle or is the War on Terror some kind of toe-to-toe slugfest, best fighter wins.

Sticking this in Switchboard for the moment but will understand a move to Books, preferably after it actually gets published.

10:42 / 29.06.04

What do you think? Is the Bush led administration being played like a tin whistle or is the War on Terror some kind of toe-to-toe slugfest, best fighter wins.

Neither.

All successful empires have had to be harsh. The US is no exception. (In fact, the current administration takes this point to an unfortunate extreme). From its point of view it must meet the threat head on.

"Terrorist" label aside, I can't recall any group of guerillas ever losing a war. This doesn't mean however that they (whoever they are) are orchestrating the US in any real way. Yes they know Bush is going to be harsh, and yes that's probably the reaction they want, but that's where it ends.

I think as people realise this toe-to-toe idea of a war on terror is just plain wrong, the government will begin to implement more feasible ways to limit the damage caused by the guerillas through better propaganda. However, the sad thing is that the US are not ready to do this yet as I believe rather than Ozzy playing Georgie - it's the other way round.

I'm sure George finds it far more convenient for his political ambitions having Ozzy the bogeyman to contend with, than Osama et al find it dealing with Georgie Porgy.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:40 / 02.07.04

Part of the reason is the nature of the adversaries; the more the U.S. and its allies pursue individuals and failed states, the more it looks like bullying and backdoor empire. Another part is the nature of the combatants; they're not - and this is truer of the War On Terror than any previous campaign - monolithic. Saudi Arabia, for example, is supposed to be a staunch U.S. ally - but much of the funding for Al Qaeda comes from or moves through Saudi. This is one of the things Paul O'Neil wanted to look at when he was SecTres - to no avail. Saudi financial practices are beyond the scope of U.S. investigation, apparently, because the House of Saud is friendly. Similarly, the nature of international finance is to be open and anonymous. As soon as you start to try to legislate for better disclosure for law-enforcement and security, banks and financial institutions dig their heels in. The conditions which create the lifestyle the U.S. and industrialised/liberal democratic capitalist nations want are also the ones which allow the function of terror groups.

The War On Terror is doomed because it's a snake eating its own tail in more ways than not.