Rethink on terror required

THE massacre of 132 people in Paris has left many people around the world gutted, paralysed by fear, and dumbfounded. Paris, the city of love, the cradle of romance and exuberant artistic creativity, dwells under the spectre of terror.

Shortly before the Paris carnage, numerous people in Lebanon were killed in yet another terrorist attack. The Middle East, the sacred region of spiritual rebirth, has not escaped the senseless mayhem.

In light of the latest terror attacks, perhaps it’s time to ask the inevitable question: Is the developed Western world winning the war on terror? Are the methods they have been employing so far, effective?

To better understand the beginnings of the US-western Europe strategy of waging “war on terror”, one needs to reach back to the end of the Cold War. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the US viewed itself as being the only superpower. Further, many of those who believed in the US political-economic system started propagating the idea that the whole world would be better served if the US approach were to be transplanted globally.

Critics of US foreign policy pointed to the fact that under the guise of spreading democracy, stability, and prosperity – the US nominated itself as the only nation that had the right to police and guide other nations. With the enormous military and financial powers that they wield, it was not long before abuses of that power became apparent.

A case in point was clearly demonstrated when Iraq was invaded with the cooperation and assistance of France and the UK. At the beginning of that onslaught, the international community was told that the military operation was critical because Saddam Hussein was harbouring weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and he had threatened to use them against neighbouring democratic nations.

Yet, before the joint military operation was in full swing, political and military intelligence experts began to voice caution about the idea that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Nevertheless, the attack on Iraq proceeded; the country was destroyed and left in ruins.

At the end of the Iraq fiasco, no WMDs were found. As a matter of fact, it turned out that the leaders who engineered the attack on Iraq knew all along there were no WMDs. Later on, the media revealed that the major objective of the invasion was to ensure the security of oil supply for the US market.

With Saddam Hussein gone, the US and its allies promised that a democratically elected government that would bring about peace. Instead, the ensuing instability brought on the Taliban. Subsequently, 9/11 introduced us to an even bigger challenge – al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Covert military operations eventually led to the death of Bin Laden and virtually the total “containment” or removal of his colleagues.

But the terrorist menace remained. Instead of expected democracy, the Arab Spring has left turmoil throughout a major section of the Arab world. In its wake, Isis has emerged as the new terrorist “kid on the block”.

Since 9/11, the weapons of war are anything and everything. The theatre of war is everywhere – city buildings, restaurants, train stations, stadiums, buses, trains and planes. The enemy wears everyday civilian clothes; most times he is an ordinary person, even a citizen of the country he attacks. He lives among the people he plans to kill, looks and speaks like them, and even fraternises with them. The day of an offensive is usually very difficult to determine – it can be on any given workday, or a peaceful Sunday.

In this new mode of warfare, the terrorists have multiplied and attacked the US and its western European friends. Worse, whoever else houses US institutions or personnel, or purports to support US interests or western European values, is certainly not safe.

Despite public averments by Western leaders that the war on terror is being won, terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of scores, if not hundreds, of innocent civilians.

Clearly, the methods applied so far by the West haven’t done much to nip this hazard in the bud. Surely, a new strategy or a new course of action are required.