by Alistair Millar
SojoMail 7-13-2005

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration and the wider international community seemed to recognize the simple fact that terrorism can not be defeated primarily through military means. In that spirit and with great unity of purpose the United Nations Security Council created the U.N. Counter-Terrorism Committee to build the capacity of nations to prevent terrorism and stepped up the activities of the committee charged with seizing al Qaeda and Taliban assets. The G8, which met last week in Gleneagles, Scotland, for its part created the Counter-Terrorism Action Group. Since then numerous other international and regional organizations followed suit, but the U.S. and others seem to have lost interest and squandered precious resources by preferring to trumpet a bellicose response to terror instead.

Multilateral efforts to freeze assets, build the capacity of underdeveloped states to fight terrorism, strengthen legal mechanisms, and improve law enforcement cooperation are more effective and far less costly than prolonged overseas military deployments - the financial and human costs of which are made painfully clear in the daily news from Iraq. The loud hum of the war drum has become so constant on cable news and at White House press briefings that many Americans have become desensitized to the violence that is daily taking place in Iraq. To quote one astute observer:

"Can you imagine if the world reacted the same way to each car bombing in Iraq? Eight world leaders commenting; talking heads on every news program discussing how the terror must stop, the hearts and minds of millions around the world in solidarity with those affected by the violence.... What a different world it could be."

The simultaneous attacks on London's rush-hour commuters were barbaric and horrific - but are pretty much equal to a standard day in Iraq since the "coalition" invaded. Figures released by the Iraqi government in June indicated that 670 Iraqis and 77 Americans were killed in the previous month alone. Plus, Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, has been quoted in the press as saying that insurgents are staging about 70 attacks nationwide per day.

This is the road our leaders navigate for us, employing a short-sighted and ineffective counter-terrorism strategy based primarily on the use of force.

Cooperative strategies of denying terrorists access to resources, increasing the capacity of states to track terrorist activity, and providing underdeveloped nations with the resources they need to enhance good governance are essential but not given sufficient attention by the Bush administration. Such efforts not only protect against current terrorist threats but also address longer-term root causes, whereas strategies based primarily on military force undermine cooperation and fan the flames of violent extremism.

As President Bush himself has acknowledged, a successful long-term strategy must also promote good governance and respect for human rights; however, an "ideology of hope" cannot be propagated at gun point. A counter-terrorism strategy based primarily on the use of military force can at best provide short-term tactical victories and at worst sow the seeds of resentment that will breed tomorrow's terrorists.

Remarkably, however, multilateral cooperative counter-terrorism instruments, so critical to global efforts to combat terrorism, have atrophied in recent years as both assets and political attention are swallowed by the festering situation in Iraq.

The terrible events in London, almost certainly designed to shake the resolve of those leaders and their residents, provide them with the opportunity not simply to reiterate support for rebuilding Iraq and combating terrorism, but to recommit themselves to an international, comprehensive strategy to defeat terrorism by promoting better cooperation in the near term and increased development on a global scale to break people from the desperate cycle of poverty and deprivation that fosters extremism and violence.

The recent bombings on the London transit system shatter the Bush administration's claim that it is winning the war on terrorism and renders hollow the administration's oft-repeated notion that "We'll take the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home." Despite the heroic sacrifices of British and American troops abroad and the emotive rhetoric of the president and Prime Minister Tony Blair, terrorist attacks not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but throughout the world are on the rise.

While Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff in charge of policy, derides liberals, claiming they "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," he applauds conservatives, whom he said "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." What has this heavy-handed militaristic approach won us? Now nearly four years after the September 11th attacks - approximately the time it took the Allies to defeat the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan in the Second World War - victory seems only more elusive.

The fact is that al Qaeda is not a government that can be subdued by war but a diverse network of non-state actors spread across more than sixty countries. Countering such an enemy requires cooperation among many states and a comprehensive approach that protects against the terrorism of today while draining the reservoir of recruits for tomorrow. Better strategies and policies are available than this dangerous and inflammatory course we have been led down so far. It is past time our leaders recommit themselves more seriously to the instruments of multilateral cooperation so essential to winning the long-term war on terrorism.

_________________________________________

Alistair Millar works for the Fourth Freedom Forum in Washington, D.C.

This article was published in Sojomail, a free service of Sojourners Magazine. It is used here with permission.