Tag: al Qaeda
-
2010: A Peace Odyssey?
This article was originally published on Truthout.
Another year brings another war, so it would seem. Already in the works beforehand, but now hastened by the Christmas “underwear bomber,” we are swiftly moving down a road that could lead straight to another front in the generational war without end. The al-Qaeda bogeyman rears its head, and we respond like clockwork. All aboard folks – next stop, Yemen.
Is this really the most effective way to make national policy and decide the fates of others around the world? When a suggestible and misguided youth attempts an asinine act, does that mean we automatically must respond in kind with foolhardy actions of our own? This has led to disastrous effects already in the Global War on Terror, and equally troubling alterations in the fabric of society here at home. Simply put, if we let the terrorists dictate our course of action, then we have already lost the moral high ground and the upper hand in the larger conflict as well, as Patrick Cockburn suggests in a cogent essay on the situation in Yemen:
“In Yemen the US is walking into the al-Qa’ida trap. Once there it will face the same dilemma it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became impossible to exit these conflicts because the loss of face would be too great. Just as Washington saved banks and insurance giants from bankruptcy in 2008 because they were ‘too big to fail,’ so these wars become too important to lose because to do so would damage the US claim to be the sole super power…. But the danger of claiming spurious victories is that such distortions of history make it impossible for the US to learn from past mistakes and instead to repeat them by intervening in other countries such as Yemen.”
Consider that we are still embroiled in an escalating war in Afghanistan as a direct response to the events of 9/11. Iraq, of course, was folded into this “terror-response” logic by the Bush administration despite clear evidence to the contrary. Pakistan has now become the new Cambodia to Afghanistan’s Vietnam in the current war that echoes actions of the past. And, now, we have our sights set on Yemen as the next front, which Marwan Bishara contends will almost inevitably lead to disastrous effects that serve to exacerbate the conditions that yield terrorism:
“[O]ver the last several months, Yemen has emerged as the latest front. Reportedly, the US air force has participated in the bombardment of several locations in Yemen and spent tens of millions of dollars. But since the Nigerian man was apparently trained in Yemeni camps that are less threatened than Afghanistan, one can expect this war front to be expanded sooner rather than later. Waging another war in or through Yemen could prove, as in Afghanistan, untenable as the country could descend into chaos. With war against the Houthis in the north, tensions with the secessionists in the south, and the regime’s tenuous hold on power, Yemen could implode.”
If the United States is truly to be a global leader, we are setting a poor example through our war-making policies. We are essentially mere followers in this dynamic, letting the terrorists set the agenda and walking right into the response they expect and desire from us. Recall that up front it was al-Qaeda’s stated intention to bleed America’s moral and economic resources dry by provoking us into direct military interventions in Muslim nations. By choosing the retaliatory option, we are playing precisely into their hands, and thus relinquishing the mantle of leadership.
Similar patterns have taken hold at home. On the heels of 9/11, a fundamental reorientation of the delicate balance between liberty and security ensued. Rights of privacy, due process, habeas corpus and presumed innocence have been lost, perhaps permanently, as the constitutional architecture of two centuries eroded under our feet. Now, following the botched Christmas attack, we are likely to see a ramping up of the security apparatus, including privacy-impinging actions such as pat-downs and full-body scans. Not to mention, of course, the commitment of more resources to continue fighting the war that the terrorists wanted to goad us into all along.
It is a grim picture coming out of 2009, but the symbolic relief of calendar change can be a powerful curative. I would like to suggest that 2010 can become a critical turning point year toward peace and prosperity if we focus our energies positively and proactively. Here are just a few suggestions for moving in that direction and making the new year one that history will recall as the beginning of the end of a mindset that has plunged the world into perpetual warfare.
The Peace Dividend: Whatever your views on war, one thing most people can agree on is the desire to live peaceful and productive lives. This includes the existence of an economy in which ordinary people can prosper and be assured of fairness in their wages, investments and expected contributions. The war ethos has shifted trillions of dollars from public to private coffers, and it has stimulated not economic growth, but a global recession. Ending war means more resources for education, health care, community development and environmental protection – all of which promise better prospects for a peaceful world than does the path we have been on until now.
Cultural Exchange: The high-speed potential of both the Internet and international travel has opened up – perhaps for the first time in human history – the possibility of realizing a truly global society. This does not entail giving up autonomy or sovereignty, but asks only that we remain open to and appreciate the remarkable cultural diversity of our world. The more we become educated in this regard, learning about the myriad ways in which people everywhere share similar hopes and desires despite their unique cultures, the more we will opt for peace.
Politics Is People: For too long we have abdicated control over our lives and fortunes to remote representatives who have failed to adequately protect and promote our interests. Party politics is passé at this point, with the clarity of insight that lobbyists and corporate concerns have essentially purchased a controlling interest in politicians of all stripes. The saving grace in our system is that “the people” retain the ultimate political power, despite repeated attempts to undermine this constitutional gift from our forebears. This power is electoral, but perhaps even more importantly, it is personal, with each of us asked to make numerous daily choices regarding how we will exercise it. Simply put, we can watch peace, purchase peace, eat peace, drive peace and learn peace if we have the will to do so. And, then, politics will have no choice but to follow.
There are many more notions along these lines, which I will leave to your imaginations to develop and implement. The basic point is that we stand today at a critical juncture, and can ill afford to slide blithely back into apathy and torpor if we are to avert that proverbial iceberg sitting just ahead on our present heading. Let history record that 2010 was the year we steered clear and instead charted a new course for ourselves and the world toward peace in our time.
-
Afghanistan: War Is Not the Answer
Statement of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
President Obama’s recent decision to send 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan is part of a larger trend of escalating violence in a country renowned for being a graveyard of empires. After adding 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan in March 2009, the months of July, August and October 2009 were the deadliest months for US troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Continued attacks against civilians have stoked anger and resentment among the people of Afghanistan.
The US invasion and occupation of Iraq have shown that true stability and democracy cannot be imposed through violence. Even with a US force of over 100,000 troops, Iraq remains an extremely dangerous place, with daily bombings, kidnappings and killings. Many people in Iraq still lack basic necessities such as electricity and clean drinking water. By some estimates, more than one million Iraqis have been killed in the war and more than four million have become refugees.
The president’s decision to add nearly 50 percent more US troops to the occupation of Afghanistan will, together with troops from other NATO countries, bring total troop levels to around 150,000 – approximately the same number of troops deployed by the Soviet Union in their failed war in the 1980s.
According to US intelligence agencies, there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, and there are serious tensions between al Qaeda and the Taliban. Even if the Taliban were to prevail in Afghanistan and offer al Qaeda a “safe haven,” it would be unlikely that al Qaeda would accept it, preferring instead to maintain the “invisibility” of a non-state network.
Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the question, “Will the president’s decision to increase US troop levels in Afghanistan make the United States more secure?” For the following reasons, we believe this question must be answered in the negative.
Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will lead to more US casualties. The war in Afghanistan has already claimed the lives of nearly 1,000 US troops and has severely impacted the lives of countless others through repeated deployments, serious injuries and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will create more casualties among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion are estimated at between 12,000 and 32,000. More than 200,000 Afghan people have been displaced. Increased US troop numbers in Afghanistan are likely to result in increased civilian deaths, injuries and displacements.
Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will breed more extremists. A US intelligence report in early 2009 showed that only one-tenth of enemy fighters in Afghanistan are ideologically-motivated Taliban; the vast majority are fighting against foreign occupiers or for personal economic gain. The continued war in Afghanistan will perpetuate conditions conducive to recruiting by al Qaeda and other extremist groups. Civilian casualties, indefinite detentions and destruction of property only create more extremists.
Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will lead to increased financial burden. It is estimated that it will cost an additional $1 million per year for each individual troop sent to Afghanistan. According to the National Priorities Project, total US costs for the war in Afghanistan in 2010 are estimated at $325 billion. Especially at a time of high unemployment, economic hardship and a massive federal budget deficit in the US, this spending is not responsible.
Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will weaken US military readiness. By adding more troops in Afghanistan, President Obama will stretch the US military even thinner, leaving fewer troops in reserve, causing more repeated tours of duty, and reducing our capacity and readiness to respond should other conflicts arise.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The military is the wrong tool for solving our problems in Afghanistan. It is akin to using a chainsaw for surgery rather than a scalpel. The most effective ways to deal with extremist groups, such as al Qaeda, are through international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement. A recent study by the RAND Corporation shows that only seven percent of terrorist groups were defeated by military force in the past 40 years.
For the reasons set forth above, we urge Congress not to fund additional troops in Afghanistan. Instead, Congress should help in funding the rebuilding of Afghanistan’s infrastructure and support the Afghan people in building institutions of social justice such as schools, courts and health care clinics. Respect for the US in Afghanistan and around the world would increase significantly by providing even a small fraction of the resources currently being spent on the war in Afghanistan for these constructive purposes.
-
‘Nuclear Terrorism’: Counting Down to the New Armageddon
Nuclear Terrorism The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe by Graham Allison
263 pp. Times Books/ Henry Holt & Company. $24.Terrorists are striving to acquire and then use nuclear weapons against the United States. Success, as defined by Osama bin Laden, would be four million dead Americans. Mounting evidence makes this much abundantly clear. Documents discovered in Afghanistan seem to reveal Al Qaeda’s detailed knowledge of nuclear weaponry, while intelligence confirms the terrorists’ attempts to acquire nuclear material on the black market.
In reaction, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are giving pride of place to catastrophic terrorism in their foreign policy platforms. Both proclaim it the nation’s No. 1 security challenge. Meanwhile, policy analysts have urgently recommended preventive measures in a flurry of reports, books, journal articles and Congressional testimony.
Now the Harvard scholar Graham Allison is sounding his own warning in ”Nuclear Terrorism” — a well-written report for general readers on the threat and what it will take to reduce it. He addresses all the big questions: who could be planning an attack; how they might acquire and deliver the weapons; when they might launch the first assault. Allison touches on chemical and biological dangers, but he separates out the far more lethal nuclear threat for special attention. Nonnuclear radioactive (”dirty”) bombs and chemical or biological devices would kill in the thousands. A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb, delivered to Times Square by truck and then detonated, could kill up to one million New Yorkers.
Some experts think a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons is already unstoppable. Allison disagrees — up to a point. He argues that prevention is still possible, and he gives the Bush administration some credit for several post-9/11 initiatives meant to tighten the security of nuclear weapons and material. However, he calls for far bolder measures, more money and forceful American leadership to improve what is at present rather lax international cooperation. His bottom line is blunt: anything less will make nuclear terrorism inevitable.
Allison blames both the White House and the Congress for falling short of meeting the challenge. To take one example, since 9/11 the rate of funding has hardly changed for the Nunn-Lugar program, which was established to destroy or secure Russia’s enormous stockpile of fissile material and nuclear weapons. Much remains to be done. Of special concern is Russia’s large supply of suitcase-size nuclear bombs, which terrorists could smuggle into the United States in cargo containers or as airline baggage. The safeguards on these weapons are loose at best. (In 1997, Russia acknowledged that 84 of some 132 such weapons were missing.)
At present, it will take 13 years, in Allison’s estimation, to secure Russia’s fissile material. Allison’s position, adopted by the Kerry campaign, is to spend whatever dollars are necessary to complete the job in four years, though achieving this objective would also require elimination of Congressionally imposed impediments to Nunn-Lugar and overcoming Russian resistance to intrusion into their facilities.
We face many vulnerabilities — limited intelligence of the terrorists’ plans; poorly protected ports, borders and nuclear power plants. But the most urgent danger is that terrorists could acquire the fissile material with which to construct a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. Russia presents the greatest problem; 90 percent of all existing fissile material outside the United States is stored within the former Soviet Union. Still, it’s not the only region we need to focus on. At least 32 countries possess weapons-grade fissile material.
Allison would round up all fissile material and ban the creation of any more. This is a daunting task. Allison himself observes that there are some 200 locations around the world where nuclear weapons or fissile material could be acquired, and he pinpoints the most dangerous — Russia because of its huge supplies, shaky safeguards and extensive corruption; Pakistan because of its indiscriminate spreading of nuclear know-how and equipment; North Korea because of its history of selling missile systems and its apparent nuclear development program; and lastly, the research reactors (some 20-odd) with significant quantities of bomb-grade uranium located in developing countries.
Allison’s other remedies — like imposing intrusive nuclear power plant inspections and sanctioning violators — may also prove difficult to implement in the real world of suspicious governments and corrupt officials. Because the United States is widely viewed with hostility these days, it may not be able to marshal the international support needed to shut down black markets or block the emergence of new nuclear weapons states. And then there is the question of money. Governments are reluctant to spend lavishly on prospective threats when tax-conscious citizens have not yet experienced any consequences.
As a champion of the idea that nuclear terrorism is preventable, Allison emphasizes the elements of an offense — improved intelligence, tighter treaties, more transparency and intrusion. But a stronger homeland defense is also needed in case prevention by offense fails. And currently, homeland security is getting short shrift. For the 2005 budget, Congress has allotted $7.6 billion to improve the security of military bases but only $2.6 billion to protect the nation’s vital infrastructure. Within the Department of Defense, $10 billion is spent annually on missile defense, compared with only a few billion on all other counterproliferation programs.
Homeland security becomes an even higher priority if one broadens one’s thinking about the potential damage from nonnuclear weapons to include more than simply the number who would die. Allison is less concerned with biological and chemical weapons and so-called dirty bombs because they kill in the thousands, not millions. But these unconventional arms can still cause mass disruption; a few anthrax incidents, after all, virtually shut down the Congress. The release of pathogens in a public space, or a biological attack on the food supply system, or a dirty bomb set off in a seaport could have enormous economic consequences. Large-scale government efforts are needed to minimize the danger of such attacks.
What makes the job of prevention all the more difficult is that the threat of nuclear terrorism is growing at the same time as the need for nuclear-generated electricity. Allison points out that all signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty are permitted to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium to make fuel for peaceful power reactors, provided they declare what they are doing and submit to periodic inspections. In other words, states can come to the brink of nuclear weapons capability without explicitly violating the treaty. Then, without penalty, they can withdraw from the treaty and turn enriched uranium or plutonium into bombs.
This is a loophole that both Iran and North Korea have sought to take advantage of. Allison and other experts argue that the United States should not discard the treaty but take the lead in fixing it. Their preferred solution is to distinguish ”fuel cycle” states from ”user states.” Those states where fuel-producing facilities already exist would provide enriched fuel to other states that wish to generate electricity from nuclear reactors. Coupling this with stiffer inspection provisions and penalties for withdrawal from the treaty would return the nonproliferation treaty to an important (if limited) role in countering proliferation.
Nuclear dangers come in several forms, those that might be mounted by states and those from terrorists that cannot be contained by treaties alone, no matter how strict. Allison covers all the potential eventualities but might have been clearer in setting priorities, since resources are limited. Rogue states, capable of launching nuclear-tipped missiles, may ultimately be a threat. But the evidence indicates that the danger currently lies elsewhere. The urgent threat is nuclear terrorism, and funds need to be freed up to fill the considerable holes remaining in our counterterrorism programs.
Allison’s comprehensive but accessible treatment of this vital subject is a major contribution to public understanding. In turn, an informed public could spur the government to complete the counterterrorism agenda. Only then, as Allison argues, will nuclear terror against America prove preventable.
James Hoge is the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine.
-
The Rebirth of the Spirit
It has been only ten days and we; the inhabitants of Madrid, still carry on our shoulders the immeasurable burden of grievance, sadness and recollection, but also the spirit of solidarity and keen understanding.
Only ten days and we walked the streets and plazas, crossed avenues in silence, drove our cars with glassy eyes, lost in expectancy and in a tremendous shock. Only those of us who were blessed and lucky enough not to lose any of our loved ones in the death trains were more or less unaffected, but always thoughtful about those people near us who found their destiny that morning, perhaps for having arrived too early or too late.
A name, surnames, voices, gazes. Madrid reminded us of Hiroshima after World War II. All of us could feel in the air the psychological expansiveness of the gunpowder wave caused by the explosion in each of the four trains.
It wasn’t the time to run madly, shouting widely to all four winds that it was the end of the world, nor to hide in our homes totally scared, under the wings of that Leviathan that Hobbes describes as the mortal god that emerges among men protecting them if at the cost of losing rights, fundamentally theirs, just for being men. However that very same Hobbes, when defining “state”, describes it as “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.” (Hobbes, T. Leviathan, part II chapter 17).
But as we became more and more aware of the fact that besides two hundred two dead and fifteen hundred wounded, existing victims from the barbarous and senseless act, all of us had left behind something of ourselves in those trains, and that it had been a cruel attack against sheer existence by those who summoning the “true religion” repress the life of those who apparently do not profess such creed, we took rapid action, showing the world our undaunted exercise of reflection, and that our spirit remain more vivid than ever, being fed by these events.
Madrid went over Madrid. Eye witnesses threw themselves without hesitation to help every possible victim; security and health assistance forces worked ceaselessly through entire shifts, doubling them when necessary: blood donation centres were full to capacity, and instead of calling for more blood, they constantly thanked people with the syringes already in their arms. Blood supply was more than satisfied. Psychological help was already available by citizens, anonymous or not, simply for the urge to attend anyone needing it.
In spite of such solidarity, a more dangerous ghost hovered the ambient air. It wasn’t even the fear for after-attacks, instead, it was a sole question: “WHO?” Question which was not answered but two days afterwards, at least as to what was of concern within the Spanish boundaries, where news signalled “E.T.A.” the terrorist band that have been killing in Spain for more than thirty years, and that just a week ago tried to kill in this very same city with similar means of terror. However, the world voice declared Al Qaeda as perpetrators of this killing, thus confirming the most dreaded suspicion.
The Spaniards were not prepared (no one is) to receive this news. Just a year ago, more than ten million people in this country, took to the streets to demand of this Leviathan to refuse any participation in the massacre which took place in Iraq not too long after; to refuse to support the imperial government of the U.S. in perpetrating the atrocious acts happening in the Middle East; and to avoid endangering Spain, that weak link of the chain called “Axis of Good”, to become another target of the Islamic fundamentalism, by adding another terrorist organization, keen to kill, to its already disgraceful list.
But power enraptures and the zeal for protagonist of Aznar, a false leader disregarded the practical unanimity of the Spaniards who put him in office to watch over the wellbeing of his citizens and not over his own personal interests or those of his party.
Things didn’t come out well for the “Azores Trio”. The terrorist attack rose at the worst timing. The events happening merely three days prior to the general elections could reinforce or at worst condemn the government role during the last two years.
The massive call to the booths resulted into an electoral twist against that neo-fascism and favouring moderation in approaching and understanding the talks forfeited since 9/11.
Spain is the first reflection that the people’s will cannot be contravened showing to the world that ultimately we, the “Civil Society”, in capital letters, are the vox populi. Our flag is, and always will be, the peace flag, and the vote we gave last Sunday was for the peace. Including those who endorsed the role of the government, perhaps, citing Hobbes again, in that zeal for protection.
No doubt Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are being forced to refashion a number of unwarranted assertions uttered during the last few days. Now, they manipulate the information assuring that the new President of the Government, legally elected in the Spanish booths Sunday 14, has decided to withdraw his troops from Iraq as an instance following the 3/11 events, in an act of cowardice and retraction. On the contrary, Mr. Rodriguez Zapatero responds only to a cohesion of thinking and to the message issued by the citizens at the macro-concentrations held against war on February 15th, 2003, the macro-concentrations held in support to the 3/11 victims, and the spontaneous macro-concentrations throughout the “Bull’s Skin” that is Spain, held on Saturday 13th, previous to the elections, which ultimately caused the results on Sunday.
Also, the Socialist Government, social-democratic based and not strictly communist as some American media sources state … (media without professional ethics and without a trifle of education, sour, because Spain is turning from capitalism to socialism, do not have a clue that this country consolidated its democratic culture mainly because of the socialist Government headed by Felipe Gonzalez who led the nation – among other things – to the European Union and the NATO) is absolutely convinced that we cannot leave at its means a country like Iraq permanently shrouded with grievance during the entire last year and with those permanent 9/11’s and 3/11’s suffered by the terrified Iraqis individuals who manage to survive.
It has been agreed the troops will remain in Iraq only if the United Nations takes command and the executioners relinquish their interests in the zone.
Still, the challenge is not for those who exhibit the power, but for those of us who walk again the streets and plazas, drive our cars and cross avenues with a vivid latent gaze, convinced that terror, fundamentalist or State terror can only cut lives, but spirits are reborn day after day which help to build better societies here, in the US in Iraq, in Morocco, or Indonesia.
Today we have seen the eyes of the victims; we have heard their grieving and heart-breaking cries. But today we have grown in numbers, in that rebirth of spirit we are much more sensitive to the atrocities performed in any part of our world, and that’s why we fight, from our little place in the planet, for a more rightful world. For peace, dialogue and understanding and for a real ethnic, religious and political pluralism.
*Jose Alfredo Vallejo Canale lives in Madrid and is a Political Scientist. He is collaborating with the Director for Latin America of NAPF to establish the NAPF in Spain.