Brute force is not the way to defeat the terrorist threat

The Guardian, 15 September 2001

The penknife and the bomb

Brute force is not the way to defeat the terrorist threat

In one corner stands a man with a penknife. In the opposing corner, a man with an enormous bomb. The man with the knife, like this week's plane hijackers, knows that in the coming fight, he may wound his opponent but he himself will certainly perish.

The man with the bomb also knows that his superior weaponry, if used, will obliterate his adversary. But both know, if they use their heads rather than their weapons, that this cannot be the end of the matter. In the place of the vanquished knifeman will rise two, three ... a hundred more just like him, just as committed, ever more convinced that they are right, just as ready to die.

The United States, which is expected in the coming days to launch a massive military campaign, some call it a war, against terrorism, should consider this certain consequence before embarking on such action. And there are many other likely, even more perilous ramifications that demand the attention of wise, responsible leadership.

The events of last Tuesday rendered unto the American people a true glimpse of hell. It was an abomination the likes of which most of us, thankfully, have never witnessed. This mass murder of American civilians has sparked an international crisis of truly global proportions. It will be prolonged and dangerous. Given the undefined goal set by President George Bush and allies such as Tony Blair - the rooting out and eradication of "evil" - it has no obvious limits and no clear end-point. It could dwarf this week's bloodshed.

As we have said, the American people (and non-American victims) deserve every sympathy at this traumatic moment. The US government deserves our support, both moral and practical. It is entitled to take all reasonable measures to find and punish the culprits. But before Mr Bush sends his enormous bombs to obliterate the knifeman, before he risks an uncontrollable, escalating conflagration involving both nations that harbour his foes and allies who trust in his command, he must stop and think. Congress has voted him an extraordinary $40bn in ready cash. Double that and still the bottom-line question arises: what, in pragmatic not symbolic terms, is the US really trying to achieve?

This is not an argument for inaction. Far from it. But America's dilemma, once the verbiage about "democracy's war" and "freedom's brightest beacon" is cut away, is that its military options, to the extent that they are currently understood, are largely unsuited to the task in hand. Indeed, much of what appears to be under contemplation will just make matters worse.

For consider: any major air and/or ground attack mounted against Afghanistan in pursuit of prime suspect Osama bin Laden will certainly produce civilian casualties. It may not produce Bin Laden (who may not even be there). Such an attack would inflame Muslim opinion and hand the terrorists a second triumph: following Manhattan, here would be the "holy war" they have long sought to provoke. If the attacks were repeated, and spread, Pakistan's nuclear-armed military regime, destabilised and compromised in the eyes of its own people, could fall to its own Islamic fundamentalists.

The implications, given Pakistan's ongoing proxy war with India over Kashmir, hardly need to be spelled out. And yet the possibility, actively urged by some in Washington, that the US may pursue its enemies further afield, into Iraq for example, or into Lebanon, home to the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah, is even more explosive. At this point, the "war on terrorism" would be fused and confused with the whole, bitter Arab-Israeli conflict and the Gulf war's unfinished business. Whatever they say now, Russia and China would certainly part company with the US; likewise Egypt, Jordan, maybe Saudi Arabia, and some European countries.

What price Nato and EU solidarity if the US crosses the line in the Middle East? And what price oil? In such a scenario, a global economic crash would surely follow. Meanwhile, the man with the knife, inspired by an even fiercer, righteous fury, will wait his chance.

It does not have to be like this. There is another way. It is less dramatic, less visceral, more statesmanlike. It requires of Mr Bush a far greater courage than an order to fire. It involves hard-nosed diplomatic coercion and painstaking investigation; it requires international interdiction of terrorist funds; it means the collective, cast-iron isolation and economic punishment of any state sustaining the suspects and their associates; it means a longer-term reassessment of US priorities and policies in central Asia and the Middle East. And it means a focused, law-based approach requiring the Taliban (if they have him) to hand over Bin Laden without delay.

Only if they refuse should the US military go and get him. For only by exploring every legitimate avenue, only by retaining the moral advantage, only by seeking justice through just and proportionate means will Americans find the lasting solace and vindication for which they cry out. In this spurious "clash of civilisations", this is the civilised way. And only in this way will the skulking knifemen of tomorrow be disarmed.

Leader from 'The Guardian', 15 September 2001 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257759,00.html

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk

Index page on Response to attacks in US

Action Alerts	PMA's newsletter	What's on where	Peace links	Help PMA grow	How PMA can help you	Petition Forms	Site Map