America’s “War on Terror”: A Prescription for Perpetual War

by Ph. D. Stephen J. Sniegoski, Historian and Journalist, Washington D. C.

America’s war on terror is actually a war on the Islamic anti-American Middle East. The war on Iraq was part of the war on terror. Essentially, the war on terror has assumed that the Middle East terrorist enemies of the United States are a network comprising various groups both secular and Islamic: secular Baathists, radical Wahhabi Sunnis, radical Iranian Shi’ites. In essence, all these different groups formed a monolithic threat to America itself.

And the war is portrayed as a cataclysmic planetary struggle between good and evil in which America must destroy the Middle East terrorists and the terror states. To achieve success in this venture it would be necessary to change the Islamic societies of the Middle East – for only by having democratic societies could the West be safe from terrorism. For undemocratic societies are either terrorist or the breeding grounds of terrorism. The terrorists bred in the Middle East allegedly would ultimately attack the United States itself. In his weekly radio address of August 20, 2005, President George W. Bush said “that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets.”1

The neocon proponents of the war on terror in the Middle East present it as comparable to World War II and the Cold War. They sometimes refer to it as World War IV. However, the danger, as they depict it, is greater than that of the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Unlike during Cold War, when the prevailing assumption guiding American foreign policy was that Communism could be contained, it is now held that American survival depends on the total annihilation of the Middle East terrorists and their state supporters. As Bush said on August 23, 2005, he would never settle for “less than total victory over the terrorists and their hateful ideology.”2

War cannot eliminate terror

The thesis presented here is that the Bush administration’s war on terror has only contributed to more terror in the world. Obviously, there is nothing novel about the idea that war cannot eliminate terror. Yohoshafat Harkabi, Israeli scholar and former advisor to Prime Minister Menachem Begin, aptly put it in the 1980s: “Terrorism is grist for the demagogue’s mill, the perfect topic for inciting public opinion, arousing popular fury, acquiring popularity.” But Harkabi darkly added that, based on the Israeli experience, “the problem is that there is no quick fix for terrorism; no military operation can put an end to it.”3 Thus the United States’ war on terror will be an unending conflict that increases the terrorist danger and even creates the possibility of a cataclysmic conflagration between the major world powers.

While there is undoubtedly a need to combat actual terrorists, the actual American “war on terror” was totally unnecessary – it has been a war of choice by the United States. Although it is necessary to combat actual terrorists, there was no real need to invade Iraq or forcibly transform the Middle East. There was no connection between the September 11 terror attacks and Saddam’s Iraq. The Islamic terrorists were opposed to Saddam’s secular regime. And Saddam himself, as brutal as he may have been to the people of Iraq, was not an international threat.

No real WMD threat from Saddam

It was quite apparent that there was no real WMD threat from Saddam. This was especially confirmed by the July 2002 Downing Street Memo that was leaked this year, which stated that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In short, the decision for war shaped intelligence; intelligence did not shape policy. The United States did not go to war because the facts, objectively analyzed, pointed to a grave danger from Saddam’s WMDs necessitating a pre-emptive attack; rather, the intelligence evidence was selected, interpreted, and presented in such a way as to justify a decision to invade that had already been made. Saddam’s alleged WMDs provided the pretext, not the cause, for the U.S. attack on Iraq.

The effect of the “war on terror” on the United States and the world has been counterproductive. It has spawned new terrorist threats. Bush, Tony Blair, and other proponents of the war deny this terrorist connection to the war on terror but the linkage is clear-cut. Many in the Islamic Middle East do detest Western culture, but it is American war policy that causes them to flock to terrorism.

Military force increases number 
of suicide terrorists

Robert Pape, author of the new book, “Dying to Win,” found that virtually all recent suicide bombings had “a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from the terrorists’ national homeland.” Pape contends: “Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies … is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.”4

The British government has compiled an extensive report entitled “Young Muslims and Extremism,” warning that British-U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is antagonizing many Muslims who see “the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan … as having been acts against Islam.”5

The American CIA, and other experts, have noted that the ongoing war on Iraq has not only increased the number of Islamic terrorists but provided a training ground to prepare them for terror around the world. The Iraq conflict is providing extremists with an opportunity to kill U.S. troops while learning skills that may eventually be employed in Western countries. These now-battle-hardened terrorists trained by the conflict in Iraq are spreading out throughout the world. Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine noted that large numbers of Muslim extremists have come to Europe from Iraq, and all “are equipped with fresh combat experience and filled with ideological indoctrination.”6

Unfortunately, many in the United States do not fully understand the negative effects of the war on terror. Even those who acknowledge that the war was a mistake hold that the US has to finish the job of pacifying Iraq. But the pacification task is not going to reach completion. And the continuing war in Iraq only leads to more hatred and terrorism around the world.

Violation of international law

But the war on terror’s adverse impact on global peace goes beyond its exacerbation of terrorism. The war on terror also serves to increase the likelihood of strife between nation-states, and especially tends to put them on a war footing. This derives from America’s violation of international law in its attack on Iraq.

For a crucial point is that the United States attack on Iraq was a violation of international law, which has helped to maintain peace in the world. The United States was not attacked or even threatened – the WMD claim was bogus and a mere pretext to launch an attack. Essentially the United States engaged in a war of aggression, which was cited in the major Nuremberg trial as the primary crime of Nazi Germany. The Declaration in the Judgment of the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 enunciated: “To initiate a war of aggression is the supreme international crime.”7

In 1945, the prohibition against making aggressive war was enshrined in the United Nations Charter, the most authoritative document in existing international law. That Charter, in Chapter I, prohibits the “use of force” against a sovereign state when that state has not committed aggression against other states. The Charter would seem to allow for making war only under two circumstances: A country may engage in war defensively, in response to an armed attack; or when authorized to do so by the Security Council under Article 42 of the Charter.

The illegality of the United States attack on Iraq has been noted by former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and current UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Even Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative, has admitted that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal according to the tenets of existing international law. He acknowledged that “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone,” but he went on to declare that “international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”8

American leaders have downplayed and even repudiated international law. A question on the legality of American actions elicited this wisecrack from President George W. Bush: “International law? I’d better call my lawyer.”9 And John Bolton who is now American ambassador to the UN has stated: “It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so.”10

Certainly the United States continues to pontificate about alleged violations of international law by other countries. But American officials view the United States as being above international law. The premise, apparently, is that the United States is a nation unique in moral authority. Nothing could be wrong with the initiation of force by the all-beneficent United States, which properly uses such force to mete out just punishment to evildoers.

American nuclear arms double-standard

But international law serves a fundamental purpose in maintaining global peace and restraining the war preparations of countries. Obviously, America’s willingness to launch pre-emptive strikes provides other countries with the incentive to get the most powerful weapons possible – including nuclear weapons – to protect themselves from the United States. For the United States is much less likely to attack a nuclearly-armed country than a powerless one. Thus the American government has favored diplomacy toward nuclearly-armed North Korea in contrast to militant regime change for Iraq.

Related to this issue is, of course, the American nuclear arms double-standard. The United States proclaims that it seeks to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. But it tolerates, and even abets, Israel’s possession of these terrifying weapons. And the United States has recently announced plans to engage in cooperation on atomic energy projects with India, which has nuclear weapons and has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Obviously, with the United States taking such a biased approach, countries such as Iran can see no moral reason not to acquire nuclear weapons for themselves – nuclear weapons are needed to deter their nuclear-armed enemies.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. violation of international law induces other countries to also violate international law. Throughout the 20th century, the United States publicly promoted peace and stability in the world through international law. Undoubtedly, in actual practice the United States violated these rules, but it would seem reasonable to conclude that the framework of international rules and standards promoted by the United States did serve to restrict global armed conflict.

Destabilizing the world order

The United States still preaches probity and restraint to other countries regarding the use of force. Hence, for the United States to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country based on a false rationale undoubtedly weakens America’s ability to restrain other countries, who would also see a need to preemptively strike at their foes, and now might conjure up any justifications to do so. In short, the launching of preemptive war has had the effect of destabilizing the world order – and that the United States did so on deceptive premises has an even greater destabilizing effect. The model of a peaceful world of law, which the United States used to support, is being transmuted into a Hobbesian world of lawlessness, where only force prevails. Maybe the United States has sufficient military power to keep other countries in line for a time – though the current chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan does not bode well for this view.

American strategists may think that U.S. hegemony is consolidated firmly and is beyond challenge. But this surely is strategic myopia. The American attempt to dominate the Middle East has inevitably engendered a backlash from other countries of the world. This would seem to be almost an iron law of international relations – the balance of power politics that goes back to at least the time of the Peloponnesian War. Even during the 1990s, other leading powers – Russia, China, France, India – repeatedly called attention to the dangers of American “hyperpower” and sought the creation of counterweights to U.S. hegemony. The American occupation of Iraq has galvanized other countries fears that a too-powerful U.S. will act in ways detrimental to their interests.

Geostrategic alliance between China and Russia

America’s hegemonist foreign policy has especially brought about a geostrategic alliance between China and Russia. In October 2004, President Vladimir Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations had reached “unparalleled heights.” In addition to settling long-standing border issues, Moscow and Beijing agreed to hold an 8-day joint military exercise in August 2005. This took place in the Shandong peninsula by the Yellow Sea about 275 miles southeast of Beijing. It involved 10,000 troops, including ground forces, navy fleets, marine forces, air forces and paratroops. This constituted the first large-scale military exercises between Russia and China since 1958.11

The joint military exercise complemented a rapidly growing arms trade between Moscow and Beijing. China is Russia’s largest buyer of military equipment. In 2004, China was reported to have signed deals worth more than $2 billion for Russian arms. These included naval ships and submarines, missile systems and aircraft. It was maintained in the media that that the August 2005 military exercises offered Russia the chance to showcase its Tu-95 and Tu-22M strategic bombers, both capable of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, which it hopes to sell to China. 12

Russia’s relations with China are not limited to military trade. In the past five years, non-military trade between Russia and China has increased at an average annual rate of nearly 20%. One of the key components of commercial trade is Russian energy exports to China.

On July 2 of this year, a bilateral Russo-Chinese declaration on “World Order in the 21st Century” was directed against the perceived American hegemonism, although the United States was not specifically named in the document. Shortly thereafter, this anti-hegemonist theme was repeated in a statement by the Shanghai Cooperaion Organization. That organization is made up of the Central Asian states and is led by Russia and China. Both declarations reiterated the principles of mutual respect of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-aggression – in short they demanded respect for the right of all countries to develop free of outside interference. Moreover, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization resolution urged the U.S. to set a time-table for removing its forces from Afghanistan and elsewhere in Central Asia.13

Russia and China back Iran to weaken US-Hegemony

It is especially noteworthy that Russia and China have come to support Iran, a country that is often presented as the next target for an American attack. Russia and China apparently view this support of Iran as a means to counter American global hegemonic intentions. Russia is helping to build Iran’s Bushehr light-water nuclear power plant. Washington continues to believe that Bushehr’s start-up will advance Tehran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.

Energy-hungry China has turned to Iran as a major supplier of its oil and gas needs. In November 2004, China and Iran signed a 25-year energy deal worth an estimated $100 billion over the next decade. At the end of 2004, China became Iran’s top oil export market.14 Huge energy deals counter American efforts to isolate Iran and deny it the funds to finance a military build-up.

Both China and Russia have supplied Iran with sophisticated weaponry, especially missiles and missile technology. In addition to anti-ship missiles like the Silkworm, China has sold Iran surface-to-surface cruise missiles and, along with Russia, assisted in the development of Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles. This assistance included the development of Iran’s Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles, with ranges of about 2000 kilometers, and Iran is also reportedly developing missiles with ranges approaching 3000 kilometers. These missiles can reach Israel. The CIA, in a report to Congress, stated that Chinese firms “have helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles.”15

There have been a number of claims that the United States plans to attack Iran this year. Certainly, Israel and America’s Israel lobby have been pushing for such an attack because Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would spell the end of Israel’s Middle East nuclear monopoly. Israel has regarded its regional nuclear monopoly as a fundamental pillar of its security. Moreover, Israel wants to eliminate Iran’s funding of groups – Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine – which are militant enemies of Israeli policy.

Bombing Iran targets with tactical nuclear weapons?

One significant claim about a possible US strike on Iran was made in July 2005 by Philip Giraldi, a former intelligence officer in the CIA. Giraldi held that the United States, at the behest of Vice-President Dick Cheney, is developing a plan for the bombing of supposed military targets in Iran, which would employ tactical nuclear weapons. The designated military targets would include Iran’s nuclear power plants.

The U.S. strike would allegedly take place after a 9/11-type terrorist attack on the Amerietwa However, the U.S. attack would not depend on Iran actually being involved in the terrorism. In short, the planned attack on Iran would be analogous to the unprovoked attack on Iraq.16

One wonders what the reaction of Russia and China would be if the United States did launch such an attack, which might kill Russian and Chinese engineers and advisors in Iran. Such an attack could possibly lead to the World War IV that the neoconservatives talk about, but even they do not think in terms of the involvement of other nuclear powers. But as history shows, many major conflagrations have been unintentional. Most countries that launch wars expect to win quick, easy victories, which often turn out to be far worse than expected.

The dilemma of US-politics

Can America move away from perpetual war, or possibly even a nuclear holocaust? The American people are tiring of the war in Iraq. There is considerable talk of an exit. Various elite groups – the oil industry and the foreign policy establishment – have generally opposed the American war in the Middle East all along, and oppose an attack on Iran.

However, many of those members of the foreign policy elite who are critical of the American venture in Iraq are opposed to a quick pull-out. According to this line of thinking, if the United States appeared weak in Iraq, it would not have the credibility to exercise its necessary role of world leadership. For the United States to pull out would put it on the defensive in the rest of the world. That demonstration of weakness would invite attacks on other parts of the American empire.

But as long as the United States stays in Iraq, the widening of the war is very likely. Incidents are always possible with neighboring Iran, which is naturally trying to influence the political situation in Iraq. And the American continued presence in Iraq can engender more terrorist attacks against Americans abroad and the United States itself. Obviously, the pro-war elements in the United States would try to exploit such incidents to justify an attack on Iran.

From President Bush’s recent statements, it does not appear that the United States intends to pull out of Iraq in the near future. The unwillingness to leave stems from the influence of the neocons and the fact that the administration’s prestige is on the line. The Bush administration is just not willing to simply abandon Iraq; to do so would be an admission that its entire policy had been a failure.

To bring about an American withdrawal from Iraq would require a political revolt in the United States. Bush’s support among the general populace has been sinking. The human crisis in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast wrought by Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 has further caused many Americans to think that the Bush administration’s priorities are misplaced. It is now widely argued that resources diverted to the war in Iraq should be rechanneled to pressing American domestic needs.

Republican Party (Bush’s party) politicians who think in terms of political victories are no longer enamored with the war as a way to win elections. It is possible that Democratic victories in the Congressional elections of 2006 could create an anti-war Congress. But, then again, much of the Democratic leadership – Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden – are against a quick pull-out from Iraq.

Most likely the United States will remain and widen the war. Ultimately, the United States would be defeated in its quest from hegemony, as has every other imperial power – but not without much blood being shed and probably with irreparable damage done to the international order.

I don’t think the United States leadership and, even less so the American people, realize the catastrophe that US belligerency can lead to. An analogy would be the great power alliances and rivalries before the First World War. At the time, most educated Europeans regarded a major war as impossible – or thought that it would be a war of short duration. The First World War, of course, turned out to be a monstrously destructive conflict that overturned the social order in much of Europe; it can be said that Europe never recovered from this terrible event. As the British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey correctly prophesied on August 3, 1914, as the great European powers went to war: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

A comparable point has not yet been reached today; but without some dramatic, unexpected, course change, I am afraid that the future will be something like Lord Grey’s prophesy – but unlike in 1914, the terrible destruction will affect the entire world, not just one continent.