Why Bush might yet give in to the terrorists

Daily Telegraph ^ | September 29, 2001 | By R W Johnson

[Clive]

ONE of the 20th century's least celebrated discoveries was that terrorism works. The Irish led the way: Britain retired from the field in 1922 not because it had been militarily defeated but because it could not stomach endless atrocities.

Eighty years on, the British Government has been bullied into submission again by the IRA, but, in the meantime, lots of other terrorists - freedom fighters, if you like - have managed the same thing: the Stern Gang in Israel, the FLN in Algeria, Zanla in Zimbabwe, and so on.

In all these cases, the metropolitan power decided that the game was not worth the candle and retired back home. The supine nature of British foreign policy derives in part from the fact that Britain has been more often successfully bullied by such tactics than anyone else.

Another variant of giving in is the making of futile gestures. Exhibit A is Bill Clinton. In 1993, after all, Islamic terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Centre. The intention could hardly have been made clearer.

Then came the attacks on the American embassies in East Africa in 1998. President Clinton's reply was to launch cruise missiles to blow up an aspirin factory in Sudan and to re-arrange the sand in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, Saddam and Gaddafi must have laughed with incredulity. President Reagan's raids on Libya had been a serious riposte - and terrorism actually diminished thereafter for a while.

But Mr Clinton was squeamish, not least in his willingness to rely on Jesse Jackson as a roving ambassador in Africa, despite the latter's determination to look hard the other way over the Rwandan genocide.

Just as Churchill's drawing of a line in the sand in 1940 made Chamberlain look awful, so President Bush's far tougher response has thrown Mr Clinton into unflattering relief.

The big point about the present crisis is globalisation. The United States says it cannot respond to this terrorism by simply "going home", and has therefore declared the whole planet off limits to terrorism. It will be an epic struggle.

Terrorism works by standing on its head the normal military objective of killing the maximum number of enemy soldiers while taking minimal casualties oneself.

Now, the logic has been pushed further still: today's terrorists assume a 100 per cent casualty rate among their own soldiers.

They believe that the US can still "go home" - by which they mean stop supporting Israel and stop harassing Gaddafi and Iraq. This could still happen. The brutal truth is that Israel is being rejected by its region in the same way that an alien heart is often rejected by a body into which it is transplanted.

Because of American support, Israel cannot be beaten militarily or diplomatically - which just leaves terrorism. It is not clear, long term, that America will settle for an endless diet of that: terrorism may still work, in other words.

The main American interest in the Middle East is oil, rather than helping Israel to find room for more immigrants.

Indeed, the first thing America has to do when the chips are really down - during the Gulf war or now - is to ensure that Israel is not part of its alliance, because that would put off far more important Muslim allies.

Governments never openly give in to terrorism: they gradually change policy, like Britain in Ireland, while protesting that terrorism has nothing to do with it. Will Mr Bush gradually give in to terrorism in that way? Despite his rhetoric, he still might.

The oddity of this virtual war is that it will be entirely up to Mr Bush to decide when to declare victory. He has just three years: by September 2004, as he runs for a second term, he will want - with whatever caveats - to announce that "we licked terrorism".

This is not such a bad deadline. If America cannot throttle its foes in that time, then it probably cannot be done at all. But if Mr Bush's second term were to begin with another terrorist outrage, America's policy towards Israel might start to shift.

In any case, it is extremely doubtful whether America can maintain its current broad alliance longer than that.

Washington will not have forgotten that, only four weeks ago, Muslim and African countries at the United Nations conference against racism in Durban were able to marshal a majority against the US-Israel axis.

That knowledge is enough to make America adamant that it will not allow the UN any control over its retaliatory action now - but it is also a reminder that, if the terrorist menace cannot be extirpated soon, the majority that has swung behind America now could swing back against it.

This, in turn, means that America cannot stop once it has overthrown the Taliban. To be sure of success, it has to make a long march through Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Sudan, overthrowing regimes or at least terrifying them into good behaviour.

There would be a lot to be said for making these strategic options explicit now, before we get lost in the fog of virtual war.

R W Johnson is the director of the Helen Suzman Foundation in Johannesburg.

[sinkspur]

There would be a lot to be said for making these strategic options explicit now, before we get lost in the fog of virtual war.

Johnson's is a voice of reason, soon to be drowned out by the cowering of the Buchananites and antiwar.com.

[liberallarry]

Great post. Sounds right to me. But then, I'm 65 and don't have to do the fighting.

[glock rocks]

There would be a lot to be said for making these strategic options explicit now

i agree with the assesment. now, should our options be made known publicly or privately? hmmm?

[Heisenburger]

I am still seriously doubting that Bush is going to do much beyond firing a few bullets and lobing a few cruise missiles. The administration seems fearful of overthrowing the Taliban, let alone Hussein.

There is always hope, though. What Johnson forgets is that America has a much different mentality than Britain. Both countries have always wanted peace. The difference is that we Americans don't care how many people we have to kill to get it.

[Jumper]

Countries have been identified by the USA. It will seek to isolate a few countries at a time, through military-political-economic means and then go after them one by one. At some point in time, this tactic will cease to work, however, it is this author's hope that it will succeed in allowing Israel and the US/North America to destroy the major pockets of terrorism and the catalyst these areas bring to the world. Once these vocal/visual pockets of terrorism are isolated and muted, the rest of the evil will have to be faced.

My guess is that the terrorist network has its beginnings in Russia, a new sort of army to confront the West and her superior military/economic/political structure. At some point, it may be necessary to literally destroy numerous nations.

If Bush gives in, then Capitalism is dead, and a way of life....

[Clive]

Yes, the world too often underestimates the ferocity of an aroused America.

[Jim Scott]

I am still seriously doubting that Bush is going to do much beyond firing a few bullets and lobing a few cruise missiles. The administration seems fearful of overthrowing the Taliban, let alone Hussein.

There is always hope, though. What Johnson forgets is that America has a much different mentality than Britain. Both countries have always wanted peace. The difference is that we Americans don't care how many people we have to kill to get it.

So, President Bush, with a 90% public approval rating, is timid and fearful of the big, bad Arabs and in your opinion won't do much of anything but - in your last sentence you casually state that Americans don't care how many people we kill 'for peace', indicating that we're a bloodthirsty nation, anxious to kill. Well, which is it? The positive backing for a President that won't do a thing (according to you) from a people who can't wait for blood to be spilt? Makes no sense.

[kayak]

This, in turn, means that America cannot stop once it has overthrown the Taliban. To be sure of success, it has to make a long march through Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Sudan, overthrowing regimes or at least terrifying them into good behaviour.

There would be a lot to be said for making these strategic options explicit now, before we get lost in the fog of virtual war.

It seems to me that President Bush did exactly that in his address to Congress and the nation on 9/20/01:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

[Califreeper]

Re: How many people Americans must kill to achieve peace..... Well, aren't we entitled to at least, uh, somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,000??????

[Peter Libra]

Johnson says Britain has been bullied into submission by the IRA. Oh, then can I redraw the map? Is the state of Eire now including Ulster? I think not. "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right". There's lads yet willing to fight for the continued separation of Ulster, milksops in London notwithstanding. Johnson is all too self serving, yet I will concede he has a point. Time will tell. Perhaps I have him wrong. In his way, he may be goading oppinion to NOT let it happen. Let the public be on guard if there is a slinking away from the drastic solutions that lie ahead. A basis for this possible scenario is the disgraceful farce of the trial in Scotland over Lockerbie. I believe, and it is a long shot,two losers were sent as fodder by Libya- big deal. Oh,spouse has on Boxer on T/V, well,now I know why we in England put up with the Defence of the Realm Act during WW2. Can one fight a successful war and let the naysayers have full throat?

[Reagan Man]

You're one seriously confused individual.

Relax already! President Bush and his people are doing their jobs and are going about their business in a very determined and methodical manner. Theses folks are pro's. The planning for the military operation(s) is in full gear mode and organizing support on a world wide basis is being accomplished. Who would you rather have running things then Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Condy Rice and of course VP Dick Cheney. The adults are in charge now. I'm confident they will make the right decisions.

ps- If algore was prez, we'd have people like Cohen, Albright, Berger and Lieberman running things. Thank God Bush is POTUS.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Makes no sense.

That is a Heisenburger trait so don't bother yourself looking for logic that isn't there.

[duckln]

Johnson's is a voice of reason, soon to be drowned out by the cowering of the Buchananites and antiwar.com.

Buchanan says that Bush is 'laser fixed' on Osama, as the initial objective. Then implies 'Powell's' war will procede in due course diplomatically or militarily if necessary. That's why the greatest 'armada' is being positioned in the middle east. Large enough to handle 20 Afganistans!

It would be fatal to incite the whole region, even the nazies had the sense to take the countries down one at a time. It was 'careless' of the British to get treaty locked into a war when at the time they couldn't back it up, losing an army at Dunkirt and 3/4 of London in the process.

Pat is right again and makes fools out of Perle, Bennett,Kristol(ugh) et al. Read Pat's Empire book again, learn something!

[2Jedismom]

we anihilate 2 muslim cities without warning.

I say October 16th or thereabouts.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Johnson's is a voice of reason, soon to be drowned out by the cowering of the Buchananites and antiwar.com.

Bush better prosecute this war to the FULLEST, and he better not wimp out like Daddy and leave us in another friggin' Iraqi mess.

There is one thing for sure nothing will stop your petty political potshots. Buchanan and AntiWar.com were quite right before 9/11. Quit your damn whining about it.

If Bush does nothing will you still have your head shoved completely up his A$$?

I watch and wait for action.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Why was Hamas and Islamic Jihad omitted from Bush's list of terrorist groups we are waging financial war on? Why haven't their assets been frozen?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

You're one seriously confused individual.

Oh, RM, you made me spew iced tea all over my keyboard.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I say October 16th or thereabouts.

How 'bout the 18th (my hubby's birthday) or the 19th (my birthday). It would be a nice present. ;*)