After Bali: Has Bush succeeded in war obsession against terrorism?

After Bali: Has Bush succeeded in war obsession against terrorism?

Abdillah Toha, Executive Director, Institute for Socio-Economic
and Political Studies (In-SEP), Jakarta

One year after the Sept. 11 attack we should ask ourselves
honestly whether the world has become a safer place and whether
Bush has succeeded in the "war against terror". We have quite
often heard statements made by the Pentagon and the White House
that the war in Afghanistan was conducted successfully with
minimum casualties on the part of the allied forces.

The Taliban and its militant gang has been routed, its
financial sources have been cut off, its leaders and followers
are now either killed or scattered in variously remote places
without much capacity to re-organize effectively. A new and
"legitimate" government has been installed in Kabul and
reconstruction of the devastated country is now under way.

Now, less than one year after the siege began in Afghanistan,
there are clear indications of a new escalation and revival of
terror. The recent barbaric slaughter of hundreds of innocent
civilians in Kuta, Bali is the climax of the new terror. Less
than 10 days before the Bali bomb attack, there were at least two
other incidence of terrorism, a suicide bombing of French tanker
off the coast of Aden and an individual attack on the U.S. Marine
camp in Kuwait, which killed one U.S. marine and two Kuwaiti
soldiers.

Five days after the Bali tragedy, at least six people died and
more than 140 seriously injured when two bombs exploded in
different public places in Zamboanga, Southern Philippines. We
could still add a longer list of deadly incidents since Bush
declared the war on terror before the joint session of Congress,
such as what happened in a Pakistani attack on a busful of French
military advisers and on innocent people attending Christian
churches there, and on the U.S. Consulate in Pakistan.

Although the Bush administration frequently warns the American
public that the war on terrorism is not going to be short and
conclusive, could we possibly conclude that we have made progress
in reducing the risk of terror. What kind of yardstick should we
use? Is it the number of "enemies" killed, the sum of people
interrogated and detained, or the replacement of a hostile regime
with a friendly one?

Or, should we measure the success and failure of the war
against terror with the frequency and quality of terrorist
attacks following the various military and security measures
taken after the attack on New York?

In the war against terrorism, we can only say that we have won
the war if the terrorists have been completely stopped, or at the
very least, that there are clear signs of a drastic reduction in
the threat of terrorism. The evidence cited above are contrary to
this. One year after Sept. 11, people are now much more
apprehensive about terrorist attacks and the facts, especially
the huge bomb explosion in Kuta, undeniably draw our attention to
the escalation of terror.

If we accept the above observation, the first step the world
should take is to be brave enough to admit that the American way
of fighting terrorism has so far been a failure. The world, under
the collective leadership of the United Nations should now
sincerely reverse its mindset and look for more effective short-
term and long-term ways of eradicating terrorism.

This is not to say that military and security deterrence
should be completely abandoned, but we should acknowledge the
cold facts that those alone might not lead us to the achievement
of our common goal, but could perhaps even encourage a further
escalation of terror in the future.

Being the strongest economic and military power in the world,
America should still be in the forefront in the fight against
global terrorism using its abundant resources. But this time
America should declare war not only against terrorism, but also
concurrently against poverty, against world economic inequity and
against state terror, especially in the occupied territories of
Palestine.

President Bush should lead the world against corrupt dictators
and tyrants who oppress whole societies, against unilateralism,
against international financial speculators and greedy trans-
national corporations responsible for ecological damage. The
world is sick, and the problems faced globally are multi-faceted,
hence declaring a war against terrorism alone without fighting
the root causes is doomed to fail. Terrorism, as has often been
discussed, is not a cause but rather a product of so many other
ills in the world.

The fight against terrorism will only succeed if it gets the
support of the majority of the world population, especially those
who feel marginalized. Once they are convinced that wealthy and
powerful countries are sincere in their efforts to help them get
fix their own deficiencies, there is no doubt that rich and poor
people in the world would work hand-in-hand to make sure that the
world is a safe place and that no tolerance should be given to
any kind of violent act.

Unfortunately hawks that believe that military power alone can
provide effective deterrence to the "enemies" of the free world
now surround Bush. Sophisticated weaponry has proven incapable of
deterring unseen enemies.

The US$40 billion military expenditure planned for the war to
oust Saddam Hussein of Iraq could well be placed in a much better
way to feed the hungry and build schools and hospitals for the
poor in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Success in the war against global terrorism would be
guaranteed if American foreign policy were based on a new
definition of its national interest that coincides with short and
long term global interests and respect for a truly just cause.