USA - War on Terrorism

--------------------------------

War was not the only answer to the WTC attacks. There were other options which would not have resulted in the deaths of innocent people.

1) INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTIONS
Those who are seek alternatives to violence frame the appropriate response to terrorism as "doing justice," not "waging war." The difference is not just one of semantics. The term "justice" suggests that the US utilize international law and judicial procedures, including due process, to bring the perpetrators of these war crimes to account. By pursuing justice in this way, the US could improve its relations with many Muslims and others worldwide, rather than destabilizing already fragile and tense relationships across national, geographic, and religious boundaries. For these reasons, Peaceful Tomorrows has always advocated a law-based route for bringing the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks to justice. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 could have been defined as crimes against humanity. Previous terrorist attacks against the US, such as those against Pan Am flight 103, the World Trade Center, and US embassies in Africa, were all defined as crimes, and the US was successful in apprehending and prosecuting the perpetrators. The United States could have cooperated with law enforcement agencies around the world to find and apprehend Osama bin Laden and members of his network. Through the UN Security Council, the US could have called for the establishment of a special international tribunal to investigate and prosecute the September 11 attacks as crimes against humanity. An international tribunal would have had legitimacy and could have received more international cooperation than a US court or military tribunal. It's possible that a tribunal could even have garnered cooperation from the Taliban, who at one time stated that they would be willing to hand Osama bin Laden over to a third party for trial. As we all know, the US government did not choose this option. As a result, thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have been killed (one count puts the number at more than 4000), and Osama bin Laden remains at large. For a more detailed description of how an international tribunal would work and why it could have been a better option for responding to September 11th, check out the following article on "Terrorism and Justice." http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=169

2) DEFINE TERRORISM AND CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE ITS USE BY ANY NATION, STATE, GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorist tactics are often referred to as "freedom fighting," and are deemed acceptable in certain situations. There is also dispute over whether only individuals can commit terrorist acts, or whether nations can do so as well. For years, the United States supported the terrorist tactics of Osama bin Laden and the "Afghanis" since they were thought to be justified if they helped defeat the Soviet Union. At the time the mujahadeen were referred to as "freedom fighters." The US also supported the Northern Alliance, whom many Afghans and human rights groups have charged are terrorists according to the US's own definition. Today, even though the US is currently engaged in the "war on terrorism," terrorist tactics are still taught at WHISC (formerly the School of the Americas) in Ft. Benning, Georgia. http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=170 In order to fight terrorism effectively, it makes sense to come to a universal consensus as to what terrorism is, and to consistently oppose its use by anyone. This would mean that terrorist tactics would not be used even in order to achieve "noble" ends. For more information on defining terrorism, please see our bulletin, "What is Terrorism?" at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin16.php3 For more information on US ties to bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, please see our previous bulletin, "The Frankenstein Syndrome," at http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin31.php3

ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF CONFLICT

---------------------------------------

Since September 11th, pundits have branded those who examine the root causes of the current conflict as unpatriotic. But there's a big difference between figuring out the root causes of an event and assigning blame. Poverty and other root sources all contribute to the instability of the world and make acts of terrorism and war more likely, but ultimately it is the perpetrators of these acts that bear the full responsibility for them.

1) DISCUSS AND ADDRESS US FOREIGN POLICY
A comprehensive war on terrorism would entail examining US foreign policy. (Or asking, in media shorthand, "why do they hate us?") Those who suggest that foreign policy changes are necessary in order to diminish the prospects of future terrorism are blasted these days by national security hawks and others for being self-hating Americans and Osama-appeasers. But this ignores the fact that leaders like bin Laden and Hussein are experts at seizing the openings provided by US actions in the Middle East. In his first post-bombing videotape, bin Laden referred to three policy matters: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, US sanctions against Iraq, and Washington's relationship with autocrats of Saudi Arabia. Playing on these issues may be manipulative, but it does help increase the popularity of bin Laden, Hussein and others within certain Muslim quarters.

2) ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT
Making arms less available keeps them out of the wrong hands -- it's that simple. Cooperative efforts to reduce and eliminate existing stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons both in the US and elsewhere significantly reduces the chance that they will be used. The Bush administration and Congress should support the pending protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The US is also the worlds largest arms dealer. As such, the US should support an international code of conduct on arms transfers and a comprehensive ban on the sale and transfer of weapons to zones of conflict. The US should also cease to export weapons to regimes that are undemocratic and violate human rights. As things stand now, US soldiers often find themselves fighting people armed with weapons marked "Made in America," as happened in Afghanistan. For more information on this subject, please see our previous bulletin, "The Weapons Industry," at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin29.php3

3) FEDERAL BUDGET PRIORITIES
Spending billions of dollars on the military almost makes the actual use of that military inevitable. Recent budgets delegated billions of dollars to the US military, despite a failing economy and struggling social programs within the US. It would be possible to feed every single person in the world with just a portion of the US military budget. If our priority is going to be peace, then the budget must reflect that. For more information on this subject, please see our previous bulletin "War at all Costs: The US Military Budget" at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin17.php3

4) HUMAN RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, AT HOME AND ABROAD
If the US is to provide an example of freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law to the world, then the US must preserve civil liberties for US citizens and be consistent in its dealings with other countries. The US should not sell arms to, or ally with, dictators and governments with poor human rights records. It should support democratically elected governments. And it must also support multilateral, international institutions aimed at protecting human rights. To learn more about recent US involvement in coups, dirty wars, and the dismantling of multilateral institutions, please see our bulletin, "Coups and Dirty Wars," at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin28.php3

5) WORLD POVERTY
Millions of people around the world live in poverty. The desperation of these people may make them particularly vulnerable to terrorist recruitment and ideologies. Poverty needs to be addressed through substantial assistance to poverty-stricken countries and fair trade practices which benefit all of those involved. For more information on humanitarian aid, including its pros and cons, political uses, and relationship to the war on terrorism, please see our previous bulletin, "The Politics of Compassion," at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin26.php3

6) ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Developing environmentally sound energy and transportation policies could reduce U.S. dependence on oil, which may be a driving force behind the US engagements in the Persian Gulf. It'll also reduce the emission of greenhouse gases which cause climate change and may lead to droughts and other damaging weather patterns. The US should institute legislation that demands higher fuel-efficiency for vehicles, and ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

7) WORKING FOR PEACE AT A PERSONAL LEVEL
The UNESCO charter states: "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that we have to erect the ramparts of peace." In order to work for peace, it is important to practice peaceful conflict resolution in our own lives, and to recognize the fact that each of us has the potential to do hurtful and harmful things to others. Peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh teaches that even destroying all of the weapons in the world will not bring peace, because the urge to hurt each other, the same urge which results in the creation of the weapons in the first place, still exists within each of us. The only way to prevent conflict and wars, then, is to recognize this fact and to choose to act out of compassion. For more information on how regular people can do "evil" things, and how soldiers (and terrorists) can be trained to kill, please see our previous bulletin, "Learning to Kill," at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin41.php3

For more on how to keep hoping and working for peace even in a time of war, please see our previous bulletin on "Stories of Hope" at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin30.php3

It is also important to realize that the grief that was a result of Sept. 11 may have been driving the rush to war -- but that doesn't make it right, nor even healthy. There is no doubt that the events of Sept. 11 were tragic, not only for those who lost someone close to them, but for all of the US and much of the world. But there still seems to be little acknowledgement that anger and desire for revenge is one of the stages of grief -- a stage which must eventually end. In order to discontinue the cycle of violence, it is essential to realize that we have a choice whether or not to act on our anger. Feeling the hurt of loss can lead us all to say, "I want the people who did this to feel what I'm feeling right now." If we can find compassion for others in our grief, we can instead say, "I don't want anyone else to feel what I'm feeling right now."

LOOKING BACK AT THE WAR ON TERRORISM Wednesday, October 9, 2002 Susan V. Thompson, ed. http://[email protected]

Read online or subscribe at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub

Article7 October 2002Printer-friendly version
Military imprecision
by Brendan O'Neill

It is exactly one year since US forces launched the Afghan war. Brendan O'Neill counts down the Top 10 errors of the war on terror.

10) Losing bin Laden

'We've got bin Laden surrounded' said a US military official in November 2001, as American bombers closed in on Tora Bora in south-eastern Afghanistan. But somehow bin Laden and other 'high-ranking al-Qaeda officials' managed to escape - 'in broad daylight and in full view of US forces', according to one report.

In January 2002, New Yorker magazine reported that 'a US-approved evacuation of Pakistani military officers and intelligence advisers last November "slipped out of control" and a number of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters joined the exodus' - or, as one US official put it, 'Dirt got through the screen'. Is that how bin Laden got out - under the noses of US forces that couldn't tell one 'towel-head' from another?

9) Killing bin Laden (not)

Following January's embarrassing revelations about Tora Bora, US officials had some good news in early February 2002. They claimed that US forces had killed a 'prominent al-Qaeda leader', who was 'tall, with a beard' and was 'being treated with deference by those around him'. 'It would be nice if [it] was Osama bin Laden', said one US official. 'But we don't know at this stage.'

In fact it was Daraz Khan, a tall Afghan peasant with a beard. Khan and two friends were killed by American bombs as they gathered scrap metal near the south-eastern city of Khost. Some now speculate whether the 'deference' that US officials claimed was being dished out to the 'tall man with a beard' was in fact simply his peasant friends 'bending down to pick up pieces of metal'….

8) Doing Afghans' dirty work

Usually it is big Western armies like the American, British and French that get proxy armies to do their dirty work for them. This time, Afghan warlords exploited the US military's lack of intelligence to settle old scores and get rid of long-standing enemies.

In December 2001, Afghan warlord and governor of the Paktia province Bacha Khan allegedly 'tricked US commanders into bombing a convoy of tribal leaders travelling to his inauguration by telling the Americans that the vehicles carried Taliban leaders'. In February 2002, US forces and their Afghan allies killed 16 alleged al-Qaeda members in a house in southern Afghanistan - though Afghan officials later claimed that 'the Americans were fed false information from a local warlord hoping to help his side in a power struggle'. 'The Americans should look before they leap', advised one Afghan commander.

7) Blowing up friendly weapons

After two months of 'hanging around and getting bored', Britain's Royal Marines celebrated their first big success in Afghanistan in mid-May 2002: they found and destroyed a 'massive al-Qaeda arms dump', boasting of how they had created the 'biggest controlled explosion since World War II' by blowing up 'four caves full of enemy ammunition'.

Three days later, it was revealed that the arms didn't belong to al-Qaeda at all, but to a 'friendly Afghan warlord'. 'Arms blown up by marines were mine', said a headline in the Daily Telegraph, reporting that 'thirty lorry loads of supposed terrorist arms destroyed by the Royal Marines in Afghanistan probably belonged to a coalition ally'. 'Effectively', said one report, 'the Royal Marines are blowing up their own guns'.

6) Seen through at Camp X-Ray

Despite the initial difficulty in determining the status of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (were they 'ordinary prisoners', 'prisoners of war', 'detainees', 'internees' or 'unlawful combatants'?), everyone agreed that Camp X-Ray would squeeze important intelligence out of al-Qaeda and Taliban members.

But in April 2002, reports claimed that 'the questioning of al-Qaeda prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay has descended into farce', with 'inexperienced interrogators routinely outwitted by detainees'. With most army interrogators and Middle Eastern linguists in Afghanistan, Camp X-Ray has relied on young, underqualified and inexperienced interrogators, who the prisoners 'actually laugh at', according to one report. 'The detainee is in full control', said one linguist. 'He's chained up, but he's having fun.'

And according to recent reports, there are 'no high-ranking al-Qaeda members' at Camp X-Ray, just bin Laden's and Muhammad Omar's foot soldiers. 'It is very limited what these people can tell us', admitted one US official.

5) Don't mention Shah-i-Kot

As Operation Anaconda in the Shah-i-Kot region in east Afghanistan came to an end in mid-March 2002, US General Tommy Franks said it had been 'an unqualified and absolute success'.

Except for the lack of dead al-Qaeda fighters: US officials claimed that 800 had been killed, but only about 20 bodies were found. Then there were Afghan allies' claims that Anaconda had been 'terribly organised', and that US forces 'went ahead without making trenches, without reinforcing their positions; and then they were cut off and they retreated really'. There were also the locals' claims that most al-Qaeda and Taliban members had left the region before the bombing started, raising the possibility that Anaconda's 3250 bombs had been dropped on largely vacated territory, allowing the enemy to 'escape further, while the US military focused on a red herring zone'.

4) Three weddings, many funerals

On 1 July 2002, an American bomb 'went astray' in southern Afghanistan killing about 30 civilians at a wedding party. In early May 2002, Australian troops allegedly came under fire from al-Qaeda forces, and called in American bombers to launch an attack - but according to an Afghan press agency, the men 'engaged' by the Australian troops and later bombed by US forces in fact 'belonged to a wedding party, whose traditional AK-47 firing celebrations had been mistaken for offensive fire'. On 29 December 2001, a wedding in eastern Afghanistan was bombed and 62 civilians killed, many of whom were 'vapourised', according to the UK Guardian. The lesson? While the war drags on, don't get hitched in Afghanistan.

3) Dogs of war

In early 2002, a US marine sentry feared that his camp in southern Afghanistan was coming under attack from al-Qaeda fighters after he heard suspicious noises, so he opened fire. Neighbouring American bunkers were startled by the gunfire and they too started shooting. As the marines moved to their forward positions, one was hit by a bullet in the leg and was later awarded a Purple Heart for bravery. What had started this little clash?

'The next day patrols went to check the perimeter for al-Qaeda casualties. Instead they found a dead dog. Later it appeared that the single American casualty had been hit by a ricochet fired by his own side. There never had been an al-Qaeda raid. The gun battle was started by an Afghan mongrel….'

2) Almost killing Karzai

In early December 2001, US officials announced that a B-52 bomber had accidentally dropped a bomb on US soldiers, killing three American special forces and five Afghan allies. 'I, along with the rest of America, grieve for the loss of life in Afghanistan', said President Bush in a special statement in the Oval Office.

Four months later, in March 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported the 'untold story' of the 'B-52 incident'. The paper revealed that in fact 25 Afghan allies, not five, had been killed by the stray bomb and that many Afghans had been injured - including one Hamid Karzai, who was 'bloodied by flying glass that penetrated his face and head'. Where were the US special forces, the Afghan allies and Hamid Karzai going when the B-52 accidentally bombed them? To the ceremony that would install Karzai as Afghanistan's interim prime minister.

1) Chasing shadows

'We will stop chasing shadows', said a US military spokesman in January 2002, claiming that America would put a 'clear focus on capturing bin Laden'. 'I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden], I know he is on the run', said President Bush in March 2002. 'The goal has never been to get bin Laden', said General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, in April 2002. 'I don't have a particular name affixed to what I'm going up against', said US lieutenant-general Dan McNeill in June 2002. 'We are fighting a shadowy enemy dwelling in dark corners of the Earth', said President Bush in July 2002. Does that mean the US will be chasing shadows…?