THE WAR ON TERROR: SOWING SEEDS FOR MORE CONFLICT

We are involved in a never-ending cycle of violence. Both the terrorist Jihad and America’s response to it in the form of the war on terror, illustrate how aspects of human nature are at the core of this complex problem. We need a political, economic, historical, psychological and social approach to analyse terrorism, since all these aspects are intertwined in an astonishing manner. Seeing it through a single lens risks disregarding important elements.

However, one’s intuition is that psychological issues such as ‘fear’ are helpful in understanding why terrorism and the war on terror have both the same character, and the power to inspire a sense of insecurity. The result triggers more and more political violence.

The war on terror is a campaign initiated by the US in 2001 to prevent terrorists from perpetrating new attacks, using political, legal and military forces. Undoubtedly, the use of hard power –military force– will make the effort unsuccessful as violence always breeds more violence.

By attempting to provide security, America’s use of force, in fact, has made it more vulnerable to terrorism. Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s definition of the war on terror as “a classic self-inflicted wound” exemplifies the fact that the war’s consequences are worse than the terrorist attacks themselves.

Although recently senior administration and military officials have redefined the war on terror as “a long-term struggle, which is as much an ideological battle as a military mission”, it maintains an essentially ‘violent’ approach. The renowned French sociologist Michel Wieviorka argues, violence is “linked to the concept of conflict and to the image of crisis. For there to be a conflict, there has to be actors on one hand and issues at stake on the other”.  With this in mind we must ask ourselves what is at stake for terrorists? What is at stake for us? Is there a danger in approaching this matter from our perception of threat and vulnerability? –while ignoring theirs?

To understand the multifaceted phenomenon of terrorism and the intricate situation in which we have entrapped ourselves, we need to refer to human’s nature. The notion of ‘Homo Homini Lupus’, used by Roman playwright Plautus and later by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes to describe the human nature depicts this: Humans –although rational– are inherently selfish, self-centred, and even violent under certain circumstances. Especially when it comes to defending their own interests or those of the group to which they belong.

This Latin expression has been translated to English as ‘man is a wolf to man’, claiming that men’s behaviour is driven by egoism to secure their own wellbeing without hindrance from a norm of justice or mercy toward other men.

Violence was expected to decline through the establishment of civil states, international institutions and universal rules such as the Declaration of Human Rights.

Nevertheless, neither the states nor the international institutions have succeeded in eradicating violence. Conventional wars, state-terrorism and more specifically Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 prove this point. – These all aggravate a systematic process of polarization, cultural fragmentation and radicalisation in the world. Human feelings of fear and insecurity are at the core of this cycle. As they increase, the problem becomes more intractable.

The War on Terror and the cycle of violence

The 2001 terrorist attacks spawned the US attacks on Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq. These acts increased the anger and resentment of locals, breeding more violence and setting the agenda for future terrorist attacks. It is precisely this fear that provides a justification for violent and disproportionate retaliation, sowing the seeds for more conflict.  Fear fuels violent reactions, leading to further violent retaliations.

If the aim of the war on terror was to stop terrorism, it has failed. Several studies reveal that after the Iraq invasion, terrorist attacks have continued to grow significantly. Hence, opposite to what was expected, the war on terror has diluted the ability of the US to curb the spread of terrorism.

Sowing seeds for more conflict

It is interesting to note that this ‘fear’ and ‘sense of threat’ has been reinforced by official statements and mass media, and have subsequently bred further discrimination, intolerance, anger, while generating more marginalisation and alienation.

Another concern is that the war on terror has been used as a pretext to pursue aggressive policies –using hard power– which will inevitably worsen the situation. Violence incites retaliation and we fall into a labyrinth from which it is hard to escape. Instead of diminishing fear and violence, the war on terror exacerbates the feelings of ‘vulnerability’, both in America and in the Islamic world.

The failure of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq to eradicate the threat of terrorism has also damaged the US image, fuelled a widespread sense of anti-Americanism, and helped to spawn radicalism, providing more volunteers for Al Qaeda. We do need to confront the deep roots of the problem globally, but it is time to reconsider the use of military force to do so.

Can we stop the cycle of violence?

The war on terror, which is based on violence, demonstrates either our incapacity to overcome our ‘basic human nature’, or our unwillingness to tackle terrorism with the proper means.

At this stage, there is no doubt that the conventional use of force to ‘stop terrorism’ is far from effective. If we truly intend to end the vicious cycle of violence, we must respond with a comprehensive approach, addressing the political, economic, social and cultural causes of terrorism.

Many scholars and ordinary people have come to recognize the complexity of terrorism. Leaders, however, ignore the intricacies of terrorism and continue making decisions based on their prejudices, narrow-mindedness and selfishness –proving Hobbes correct.

We need to take care of our feelings of fear and selfishness. This is a titanic mission, which requires fostering cooperation instead of competitiveness. By constructing a new political, economic, and social system, based on the principles of engagement, inclusiveness, and respect for common rules, we will be able to reduce the reoccurrence of political violence.