On May 2, nearing the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, the architect of the biggest attack on US soil, was gunned down at a safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, his body lowered unceremoniously into the sea. Another chapter had ended. The story though is far from over. The US war on terror began decades before 9/11. The deadly strike on a marine base in Leba-non in 1982, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and the assault on the USS Cole in 2000 were escalatory steps which eli-cited clinical military responses such as attacks on Tripoli, Sudan, and the botched intervention in Mogadishu, Somalia. But surgical and more measured responses eventually succumbed to more largescale adventurism aimed at smashing Islamism and replacing it with nation building and Jeffersonian democracy.
Notably, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be discussed solely in strategic terms. In fact, the war on terror has adversely impacted the US and the world on every existential level. Employing asymmetrical tactics, the goal of terrorism is to instil fear, tear away at the social psyche, and weaken political will -ultimately delegitimising sound and democratic governance. The Web site, terrorism-research.com, elaborates, identifying the following as the principal objectives of a terrorist organisation: Produce widespread fear; harass, weaken, or embarrass government security forces so that the government overreacts and appears repressive; discourage foreign investments, tourism, or assistance programmes that can affect the target country's economy and support of the government in power; influence govern- ment decisions, legislation, or other critical decisions.
What impact then have the 9/11 attacks had on US policies? Has the US achieved its goals in suffocating terrorism? In other words, can it declare victory? The father of Taoism, Lao Tzu, wrote that "he who gains victory over other men is strong, but he who gains victory over himself is all-powerful." If we apply this yardstick to the US today, we are confronted with a disturbing reality. In short, Islamic militancy has achieved its goal of changing the political and economic landscape on a global scale, to the detriment of its enemies. Firstly, the ill-advised US invasion of Iraq has created a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East with the revival of Shi'ism and the Persian Empire, weakening the influence of western nations in the region. This is proving a new and troubling dynamic for policymakers in the West. The human toll has been staggering. According to the Iraqi Family Health Survey, some 151,000 civilians were killed since the US invasion. The Lancet Survey puts the figure at a numbing 600,000.
A Freedom of Information request by the Veterans for Common Sense puts the US casualties at just over 72,000 since 9/11. In Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance Force, of which the US is the biggest contributor, has failed to pacify the restive swaths of territory controlled by the Taliban. Further, 9/11 has left countries embroiled in a paroxysm of internecine killings and political turmoil-creating diplomatic discord and distrust. For example, in Pakistan, a purported ally of the US, the centuries-old tribal system which had long enjoyed autonomy has been destabilised. Secondly, in dealing with terror suspects, the US had indulged in extraordinary rendition (the abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one nation to another), tarnishing its image as the leading symbol of human rights and democracy. No doubt, the US and its allies have delivered decisive blows to the terror network-dismantling its operational bases in Afghan-istan, choking its financial network, disrupting communications and liquidating its most well-known leader.
However, one can argue that Al-Qaeda has now morphed into an acephalous organisation comprising small cells and even lone wolfs. Are these new outfits involved in the on-going Arab Spring? Do they pose a greater danger? The jury is still out. Thirdly, from an economic perspective, the spiralling US deficit and fiscal imbroglio cannot be divorced from these two wars that have cost close to US$4 trillion according to the National Priorities Project. With high unemployment and tepid economic growth, the Ame-rican people are realising that shouldering the responsibility for unending wars is economic suicide. Interestingly, breaking the economic backbone of the US was the intent of the repeated attacks on the World Trade Center. Fourthly, divergent strategies on how best to respond to terrorism have also led to sharply divisive and polarising camps within the US. Anti-Muslim sentiments have risen, impacting the American Muslim communities. In 2010, Human Rights Now (the Amnesty International USA Web log) expressed deep concern about the growing number of reports of crimes committed against Muslims.
"US authorities should continue to denounce intimidation and attacks against Muslims and make clear that crimes of hate and discrimination will not be tolerated," it advised. Fifthly, Americans have paid a steep price for the war on terror that transcends the battlefields, surrendering personal and civil liberties at the altar of fear-the ultimate weapon of terrorists. In the June 27 Politico article, "Homeland Security...at the cost of personal liberty," Astrid Lium wrote: "The concern for protection against terrorism is understandable. However, Homeland Security is busy insisting on experimental body scans and invasive groping of anyone from small children and their teddy bears to rape victims to the elderly and disabled." She went on to state that "security has been imposed, under the guise of benevolent protection from evil foreigners determined to destroy the American way of life in exchange for personal privacy and civil liberties." Ten years later, terrorism has dealt the US a heavy blow in hu-man cost, thrown its economy into a tailspin, wrested away personal liberties, even threatening the fundamental principle of humanity upon which its constitution was founded. In this time of reflection, the US Government should well heed the counsel of Lao Tzu: "If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading."
Dr Glenville Ashby is the
New York correspondent for
the Guardian Media Group
