"War on Terror" and Bin Laden

"War on Terror" and Bin Laden

“And a war will be won,” concluded CIA Director Leon Panetta’s email to the CIA last Monday, following the capture and deadly shooting of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and a man considered by some to be the most dangerous extremist of the 21st century, The raid on Bin Laden’s million-dollar compound in Pakistan by US forces concluded the longest and most expensive manhunt of all time.
Panetta’s email mirrored the language of President Obama and other top national security officials, all of whom focused on the idea that America can and will win the so-called “war on terror.” Some even said that American troops will not leave Afghanistan or Pakistan until Al-Qaeda is eliminated.
Simply, that is not going to happen. Unless American troops are willing to spend decades more fighting the terrorist network and its affiliates across the world, Al-Qaeda as an organization is not going anywhere.
And the “war on terror” is even more of a problem. Firstly, a war against terror can never be won; terror will always exist. No matter how many terrorists US forces track down and kill, terror will still be there.
Secondly, since the Obama Administration and the American intelligence groups have created a war that is, simply, impossible to win, they have essentially doomed themselves politically. Sure, it was the Bush Administration that started both the war and its nickname, but the Obama Administration is trying to end military engagement in the Middle East. And while US forces may leave Afghanistan and they have nearly entirely left Iraq, this does not equate to winning a war on terror.
Finally, in addition to the impossibility of winning a “war on terror,” internationally, the phrasing may unintentionally have an unwanted effect upon tto whom the words are directed. Joseph Nye Jr, professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, noted that “[w]hen British MI-5 interrogated arrested terrorists, they found that the words “war on terror” were heard as “war against Islam” and that helped terrorist recruiters.”
Beyond our allies or enemy’s feelings internationally, and even beyond our own countries opinion, using the phrase “the war on terror” allows the American Government to make an excuse. An excuse for still being in Iraq, an excuse for weak Afghanistan policy, but mostly an excuse to house long-term detainees at Guantanamo Bay and perform possibly illegal interrogation techniques upon them. If by eliminating “the war on terror” from our national vocabulary, we eliminate on more facade for the government to hide behind when dealing with detainees, it needs to go.
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of the United States is a triumph for the Obama administration. It makes the administration seem more legitimate on foreign policy, and it is an enormous gain for national security. However, his death does not signify the end of the war on terror. It may weaken Al-Queada’s operational ability, but even if his death meant the end of Al-Quaeda, it still would not mean the end of the war on terror. Simply, a war on terror cannot be won, since terror will always exist.

Read more »

The West Bank

The West Bank

Without an Israeli extension of the building freeze at the West Bank, Palestinian compromise was somewhere between improbable and impossible. This was understood- or said to be understood- by pretty much everyone involved in peace talks early this month. And yet, the Israeli government did not continue the freeze. As American leaders attempt to compromise with the nations' leaders, construction is already underway on the West Bank.

General optimism for the talks was minimal, to be fair. But this new development doesn't necessarily destroy the proceedings. While a complete solution being reached during this next round of talks is unlikely, some progress is better than none. The US special envoy to the Middle East has already begun to restart talks with Israel to continue the freeze, at least until some compromise is reached by the Israeli and Palestinian governments.
And progress is still completely possible. The Obama Administration's new focus on Israel, combined with the newfound willingness of both parties to meet is conducive to some progress at least. The two-state solution, the plan most commonly discussed in connection to the conflict, has its supporters. In the plan, an independent state of Palestine would be created to coexist with a Jewish state of Israel. While this may be the most popular plan for the people- Palestinians are given their own nation to rule as they like, the Israelis do not have to accept Palestinians as a people, it may not be a solution to the violent conflicts that are currently going on. In fact, a two-state solution may cause violence to escalate.
In a practical sense, the one-state solution works best. However, the willingness for the Israelis to grant citizenship to the Palestinians is minimal, and the Palestinian leadership- if not the people at large- are less than interested in sharing power and land with the Israelis. So, that leaves a two-state solution. If the Obama Administration pursues a two-state solution during talks with the Israelis and Palestinians, they must work to bridge the gap between the two groups of leaders.
None of this will happen overnight. It may not happen for a long, long time. But some change in that area of the world is better than none, and progress- while no long-term substitute for a solution- could quell some of the violence and create an environment more conducive to the creation either of an independent state of Palestine or a nonviolent merge of the two peoples.

Photo via nytimes.com

Read more »

Face to Face

Face to Face

As the combat mission in Iraq comes to a halt and the many recent Afghan controversies seem to have cooled off, the administration, in an effort spearheaded by the State Department, has taken up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the new international focus leading into the midterms. Which, without a doubt, is a noble task- many a president before Obama has tried and failed to aid these two parties to make a peaceful settlement, without any luck. By hosting a series of peace negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama, as well as America, at least symbolically, is expressing commitment to a cease in the volatile relations seen between not only the groups militarily and politically, but also in the people personally. If the president and Ms. Clinton are able to work with Israeli and and Palestinian leaders and help them conclude their sparring and agree on a viable solution, the Obama administration will have taken a huge and notable step forward for peace across the Middle East. However, try though the president might- and, doubtlessly, will- any outcome other than the sort of stale noncommittal ending that is shoved aside later when shots are fired once again is unlikely, simply based on the past. This isn't to say that the president and Secretary of State Clinton have no chance, it's just that they can't- and won't, according to recent statements- force peace upon anyone. No matter how committed America is or becomes to peace in the world, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must choose peace. America cannot choose it for them. Last time talks were held, they led to the death of over a thousand Palestinians as well as many Israelis. That being said, the tentatively optimistic tone being taken by administration leaders bodes well for the talks, as no one has more politically to lose from this than the Obama administration. And the commitment given by all parties to meet again, soon, can only be a good thing.
There is no way that any talks can succeed, however, unless all parties understand a few key points. There must be some solution reached regarding Hamas, as Israel's main concern is its security, the underlying theme in all of the Israeli rhetoric this week. If Israeli security is strengthened, the Israeli leaders must accept the creation of a Palestinian state. There is currently no real Palestine, forcing huge numbers of people to lived displaced in remote communities, movement controlled by Israel. This is not a long-term solution, nor is this helpful in any way to Israeli security. Soon, a state of Palestine must coexist with Israel.
As with most issues, the ramifications of an agreement reached-or lack thereof- do not simply affect Israel or the Palestinian people, nor even just the groups in attendance at the talks. The conflict, as well as any two-state solution, causes tremors far outside the Israeli boarders. This is why the issue cannot afford to wait any longer or disintegrate once again. It is imperative, for the future of the Middle East, that something is done.

Read more »

What We Can't Forget

What We Can't Forget

This year, domestic issues have been the champions of the national discussion. From the health care debate and the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Wall Street debacle and the BP oil spill, the American conversation has been, quite rightfully, basically dominated by domestic problems. However, it is imperative that the foreign conflicts the US is involved in around the world are not forgotten by the American public.
As North and South Korea grow more polarized this week, world news have made a slight return to the American media. Still, when was the last time you heard a serious news report about the Iraqi conflict? After all of the controversy last year about a surge, Afganistan and Pakistan are no longer major news presences.
What does a lack of world coverage mean for America? Americans will become completely uninformed about our nation's international interactions if this pattern continues. Without an informed public, democracy could fail, for no outrage over poor decisions will act as a check over the government.
Pseudo-foreign policy issues could return the international conflicts to the spotlight.  As Don't Ask Don't Tell is discussed more frequently, it's possible that stories about the international conflicts will follow. However, this is not guaranteed. It's possible that we will continue to simply hear stories about our national debates- which are very important, but do not excuse the absence of an entire faction of news.
This isn't to say that foreign news has disappeared completely. Some stations and papers do a better job than others, but, as a whole, foreign reporting has decreased- and not just over the past bit of time. This is a trend that has been on this path for decades.
There is no way to impart how important it is for the American public to be educated about foreign issues. America is seriously involved in many parts of the world- and not just in the Middle East. If Americans do not know fully about their country's actions, there is no way for the federal government to have a proper check on it. Without a proper check, America will become a country with unrestrained executive power.

Read more »

America's International Future

America's International Future

America has gone from a small colony of rebels to an isolated nation, from a revered ally to a disliked presence.  Although America is the only remaining superpower in the world, its world standing has noticeably decreased through the last few years. Action needs to be taken to reestablish America’s place in the world so that America can participate in the global economy and command respect from potential threats and allies.

The new presidential administration in January brought hope to many that the presence of America in the world would have a tonal change. It was evident from President Obama’s first trip overseas that Obama was certainly better received in Europe and Asia than former President Bush has been (remember the shoe-throwing travesty?).  Having a president that the world respects is a first step towards having a better and more positive world presence.

However, having our leader liked by the people and leaders of other countries is not enough.  We need to reexamine our foreign policy, especially our Afghanistan and Iraq policies in order to reestablish our standing. We will have to actually stand up for human rights in places like Darfur, rather than just talking about it. We need to lead the world in green energy, and to challenge all nations to meet the highest standards of legal systems. We have to stand up for the little people, and follow our standards of morality ourselves- not force our ideas on other nations while we house detainees at Gitmo. We need to review our nuclear policy and work for the safety of all the world’s citizens. We must take action and do all the things we claim to do, all the things we promise the world.

Read more »