|
The notion of a "war" on terrorism has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by the participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe human rights. Some people say the expression itself is inappropriate.
On September 14, when the United States House of Representatives voted on a bill authorizing the President of the United States to use military force in the against those involved in the September 11, 2001, attack,
there was only one dissenting vote -- Representative Barbara Lee of California. Much of the opposition came from the general public, long-standing pacifist groups as well as the anti-globalization (or so-called alternative globalization) movement.
Language
Some argue that the term "war" is not appropriate in this context (as in "war on drugs"), because they believe there is no tangible enemy, or that it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war.
Others [1] (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002023596_russanal02.html) note that terrorism is not an enemy, but rather a tactic; calling it a "war on terror," they say, obscures the differences between, for example, anti-occupation resistance fighters and international jihadists.
World opinion
Some critics use pejorative nicknames:
- "War on Terra", an ad hominem attack on Bush's accent and explicit written advocacy by the Project for the New American Century for U.S. supremacy over Earth, also known as Terra.
- British and Australians tend to call it "TWAT" (using "against" instead of "on").
- The Iraq component of the "war on terrorism" was derided as
- "Whack Iraq", a forecast of the result of pitting the world's mightiest military against one that had been severely damaged a decade before.
- "OIL" ("Operation Iraqi Liberation"), given that many critics claim that control of petroleum is the suspected true motive under all the liberation "sales pitch".
Germany
The leadership of the German Green Party, known for its pacifist principles that were already partly left during the war in Yugoslavia, supported the attack, but condemned the use of cluster bombs. This support led to an internal division within the party and a confidence vote called by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, in which he retained the support of enough Greens to stay on.
Differences between U.S. and European countries
U.S. and European critics make many different arguments. One concern is that none of the terrorists who attacked on September 11, 2001, were either Afghan or Iraqi nationals.
In many allied countries, the heads of governments decided against a majority of the population, as in Spain, Italy, and many eastern European countries, for example.
Death toll
The death toll, including coalition casualties, caused by the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is estimated to be much larger than the direct deaths (including bombers) caused by the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 (about 3,000).
Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from 3,853 to more than 100,000.
Details of estimates:
- Group of U.S. public health researchers, having no direct link with the politics of the military action, researched general causes of deaths in Iraq. Their report was published by British Medical Journal. This report showed an estimate of more than 100,000 civilian deaths (8,000 to 194,000 at a 95% confidence interval) caused by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq[2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm). U.S. precision bombing was cited as the most-frequent cause of death, even though the methodology could not distinguish between U.S. bombing and errant motars or air defense munitions. The report was not accepted by the coalition, but officials including British foreign secretary Jack Straw, recognized the bravery and professionalism of the researchers[3] (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_18-11-2004_pg7_50). The research made comparisons of death causes with pre-invasion Iraq, so it excludes effect of an estimated 100,000 deaths per year caused by sanctions imposed on Iraq before the war, due to accusation that it had weapons of mass destruction.
- Iraqi Body Count project [4] (http://iraqbodycount.net/) run by an Anglo-American group, estimated that the direct deaths covered by the mass media alone, to be between 15,000 and 17,000. It has an online database, tracking deaths incident by incident; showing details of date, location, reporting agencies, cause and maximum and minimum casualties reported [5] (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/). Tracking incident by incident avoids duplicate counts [6] (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods). This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order including deaths caused by the insurgents, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.
This estimate does not include [7] (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/):
- Incidents not covered by the media.
- Wounded who may die after being recorded by the project.
- Deaths caused by destruction of public health infrastructure and problems of inadequate fulfillment of basic needs, i.e medicines, food, homes, hospitals, electricity; and increase in crime rates due to lawlessness.
- People who may be seen as militants.
- Deaths of Iraqi, soldiers, police officers and other security personnel.
- Current Iraqi government estimates the deaths due to ‘insurgency’ to be about 3,853, although almost all of the independent groups see it as a bias, but an interesting point to note here is that, if these are true figures, then the deaths of ‘insurgents’ reported by ‘Iraqi government’ and ‘Coalition forces’ may exceed the total number of ‘civilian deaths’. This brings, the ‘higher human death toll’ again, into focus.
- Using one of the roughest methods and using conservative assumptions. Considering that the U.S. Army has a lot more ‘fire power’ and training than the Insurgents, if we assume 1 ‘coalition soldier’ kills 3.5 competitors before dying and for every 3.5 killed on land, 1.5 die by precision bombing and number of people killed by ‘Coalition’ is less than the number of people killed by ‘Insurgents’ and ‘Terrorists’. We get the same number of direct deaths as Iraqi Body Count Project (http://iraqbodycount.net/). This all assumes a Zero deaths caused by iraqi police and other security forces.
- Total deaths among coalition forces which are now about 1500+(Excluding 200+ in Afghanistan).
- Deaths of Iraqi soldiers during ‘Invasion of Iraq’. 30,000 estimate by General Tommy Franks(others estimates may vary)
- Deaths of Current ‘Iraqi Police’ and ‘Iraqi Security Forces’. According to the U.S. Vice president Dick Cheney, in vice president election debate, they took the biggest share of death toll, in the war. A share which is continuously increasing, at a rate higher than before.
- Similar (but lower) deaths caused in Afghanistan, including civilian by Arial bombing, Talibans by various methods, violence by local ‘war lords’, Higher crime rates, increased growth of narcotics and destruction of infrastructure.
- Deaths caused by several ‘Anti terrorism’ operations in different ‘allied countries’.
Response
- A much higher number of lives are now saved from Saddam Hussain, Taliban and Al Qaida, then lives lost in this war.
- Terrorists and insurgents are the root cause of these deaths.
- Deaths of Terrorists and their supporters should be excluded.
- ’Public health report’ in Iraq is based on ‘imprecise data’. Sanctions were justified and deaths caused by sanctions are merely Propaganda of Saddam Hussain.
- ’Body Count’ is not a reliable and ‘indirect deaths’ are not as high as they seem to be.
- Using rough methods solely based on ‘assumptions’ with no fact to support them are of no use.
- ’Coalition’ and ‘Iraqi forces’ deaths are caused by ‘Insurgents’ not by ‘War on Terrorism’.
- Civilian deaths in Afghanistan were minimal. And afghani civilians, especially women, were saved from deaths and persecution caused by Taliban.
Intelligence authenticity of Need of ‘War’
When allied intelligence was completely flawed on “Weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, how U.S intelligence can be trusted on, deaths which could be caused by “Saddam Hussain”, if not removed and deaths during his era.
U.S. claim, that more deaths could have been resulted, can be easily rejecting by observing Amnesty International report on Iraq in years leading to war. (see complete amnesty international report here) (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAQ). Report shows, deaths by ‘Saddam Hussain’ in years leading to war were in hundreds, not even in thousands. Additionally this report showed about 300 civilian deaths by ‘allied’ bombing. This showed that human suffering during this time in Iraq, was less then its current level. It shows, although ‘human right violations’ were more then an ‘acceptable level’, but overall they were decreasing and of course less then its current level.
In Addition to this Amnesty international in their open letter said (full) (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140112002?open&of=ENG-IRQ)[8] (http://www.mideastnews.com/irq4dc2.html)
- ”This . . . is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists," Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary-general, said. "Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to reports of widespread violations in Iraq before the Gulf War”.
So observing this and flawed intelligence reports about ““Weapons of mass destruction", how can “US intelligence reports” be trusted on deaths which “would” have occurred, if “Saddam Hussain” was in power.
Response
- Inaccuracy of one report doesn’t mean all other reports have to be incorrect too.
- Authenticity of Amnesty International report can’t be trusted fully. Plus Low deaths in the past don’t mean that this trend will continue in the future.
Hiding Iraqi civilian casualty figures deliberately
America is giving no official Iraqi casualty figures, citing it is difficult to estimate them reliably. When allies can give ‘reliable’ figures of death during ‘Saddam Hussain’” government, a time during which allies were not in control of the country, and even give figures of “possible future deaths” after ‘Saddam Hussain’ which in their view are ‘reliable’ enough to invade a ‘sovereign country’, why they can’t give reliable figures when they occupy the same country. Further to note that, researchers in america and other allied countries can give deaths of jews during Nazi Era reliably which happened 40 decades before first PC was made. Why the figures of casualties can’t be found reliably, in current age of ‘information technology’?
Response
- Comparison between Nazi era and current Iraq situation is not valid.
- ’Information technology’ improvements didn’t improve a lot, to estimate reliable casualty figures.
- Recent insurgency has made it more difficult to estimate human death toll then in Saddam Era.
Noncombatants
Some argue that the War unjustly results in the deaths of noncombatants (collateral damage). An alternate version of this argument is that the "war" is being fought in a way intended to minimize deaths to allied soldiers without regard to the effect on non-combatants. (See, e.g., Ten Reasons Why Women Should Oppose the "War on Terrorism" (http://war-times.org/pdf/Women%20Leaflet.pdf).)
Response
Proponents of the war respond that civilian casualties are limited to the greatest possible extent through use of modern techniques like precision bombing. In addition, they argue that a mere body count is misleading and disingenuous, as it ignores the much larger number of civilians who they believe would have been killed under Saddam or the Taliban, but were not.
Moreover, proponents of the war also argued that the large number of civilian casualties is due to the fact that terrorists often hide in densed cities or refugee camps and use the local population as a human shield.
Supporting current terrorist groups
A number of observers have criticized the United States for supporting groups that its own state department considers terrorists to help in the war on terror. Most notably the MKO, a leftist Iranian group, that has conducted assassinations and bombings in Iran. As Iran is part of the "axis of evil" this group has been granted Geneva Convention protections. [9] (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p07s01-wome.html)
Promoting future terrorism
Another prevalent theme in opposition literature is that the "war" is "sowing the seeds of future terrorism and violence" by creating conditions of poverty and desperation (Artists' petition against the war (http://www.douglaslain.com/aawii.html)).
Response
Critics of the "poverty hypothesis" point out that all the September 11th hijackers were from wealthy or middle-class backgrounds in their countries of origin, arguing that they could not, therefore, have been inspired by "poverty and desperation".
Interrogation methods
Many believe that the interrogation methods employed by the CIA violate international conventions against torture and that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as well as many detained in the US based on the Patriot Act are not treated according to international standards.
"Hegemony" and leftist criticism
One analysis is that the "war" is being fought "to establish a new political framework within which [the US] will exert hegemonic control." (World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board (http://www.anti-war.org/stories.php?story=01/10/17/9955066)) Many say the U.S. seeks to do this by controlling access to oil or oil pipelines. This view is shared by a broad variety of ideological streams, including social democrats (e.g. Michael Meacher: "the global war on terrorism has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project") ; anarchists (e.g. Noam Chomsky) ; greens (e.g. George Monbiot) ; and Marxists. In addition, many on this side of the political spectrum opine that the War is being fought to benefit domestic political allies of the Bush administration, especially arms manufacturers. (See Military-industrial complex.)
Proponents of the "hegemony hypothesis" point out that achieving such a state of affairs is in fact the stated aim of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank that includes many prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush administration amongst its present and former members.
Civil liberties
Many opponents of the "war" focus on the domestic aspects, complaining that the government is systematically removing civil liberties from the population or engaging in racial profiling. They also allege that this approach contributes to whipping up public hostility to dissenting voices by encouraging the accusation of them of being unpatriotic or even treasonous for simply disagreeing with the administration.
Some point to a CBS documentary, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, about how Hitler came to power. Later, the producer was fired because of remarks he made about his opinions that Hitler's coming to power resembles the current situation.
However, by mid-2004, similar pressure failed to significantly affect filmmaker Michael Moore's efforts to release his film Fahrenheit 9/11 which directly criticized the "war on terror" and George W. Bush in particular. In fact, the pressure backfired, creating so much publicity that the film went on to make box office history with its unprecendented successful box office run for a political documentary.
Personal criticisms
Based on Politically Incorrect language:
- Lt. Gen. William Boykin said [10] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/16/rumsfeld.boykin.ap/)[11] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031020/ap_on_re_us/general_religious_views_22) the "war on terrorism" actually a new mediæval-type Crusade
- Journalist Alexander Cockburn labelled it the Tenth Crusade, referencing the mediæval wars.
Misleading the public
Some critics argue that politicians conducting the "war on terror" are motivated by reasons other than those they publicly state and accuse them of cynically misleading the public to achieve their own ends.
For instance, in the two months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and members of his administration suggested that links existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. However, evidence for such links has so far been weak, and a thorough investigation by the 9/11 Commission found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaida in carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, polls suggest that a majority of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the attacks.
See also
External links
- Bounding the Global War on Terrorism (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf), by Jeffrey Record (a PDF)
- Myths of the War on Terrorism and Iraq (http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/myths.html), Thirty-one assertions analyzed, with hundreds of footnotes and links.
- Critical Texts for Critical Times (http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/critical.htm), A Bibliography of critical books and media intended to help us navigate the War on Terror with our humanity intact.
- "Reciprocal Madness" (http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejmourning/ReciprocalMadness.htm), An article written ten days after the attacks.
- "Folly taken to a scale we haven't seen since WWII" (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=442219), other source (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4679.htm),11. September 2003. The Independent's veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk reviews the War on Terror, two years after 9/11.
- "This war on terrorism is bogus" (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html), Tony Blair's ex-minister Michael Meacher questions the official account of 9/11 in the context of the Project for the New American Century.
- "Fallacy of the War on Terror" (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1212-13.htm)
- "Showing how Three World Wars have been planned for centuries" (http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm)
- State Department Lie About Terrorism Levels Bolstered Bush Claims of Success (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4670.shtml)
- "War on Terror" difficult to define (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002023596_russanal02.html)
|
