UN-DECLARING THE WAR ON TERROR

By Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho

An undisciplined, spiraling, and hysterical War on Terror. . . is itself more damaging and dangerous than the terrorist threats it is supposedly combating.

–Ian S. Lustick, Trapped in the War on Terror

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

--Ben Franklin

The U. S. is losing two wars – one against drugs and the other against terror. The main difference between these two fraudulent wars is that drug users and small dealers are not criminals, but terrorists most certainly are. However controversial, we should take more seriously those who propose that some drugs should be legalized, especially those that are less addictive and destructive than nicotine and alcohol.

More drugs are flowing across our borders than ever before, and Afghanistan has just harvested the largest ever opium crop. Far fewer white drug offenders are imprisoned compared to their non-white counterparts, who overload our courts and our prisons. In 2002 there were 668 prisoners for every 100,000 Americans, while there were only 59 per 100,000 locked up in Norway, Finland, and Denmark.      

Just as many Americans don't believe Bush when he says the economy is great, they are also not taking seriously his constant mantra "we are at war." The only sacrifices we are making are the ones forced on the middle class and the poor because of Bush's tax cuts, the increase in gas prices and the loss of privacy.  Even more significant is that many families who continue to lose their sons and daughters to the war in Iraq, which was not connected at all to the 9/11 attacks.

For decades other countries have fought terrorism without declaring a War on Terror. For example, India has suffered far more civilian deaths in terror attacks than we have. Even though Indian authorities know that most of the terrorists came from neighboring Pakistan, Indians did not overreact nor have they invaded that country.

Other countries treat terror suspects as criminals, not as enemy combatants. To say that members of Al Qaeda are “soldiers” is just as absurd as calling the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) "enemy combatants."  U.S. authorities laughed off the SLA claim that Patricia Hearst was a "prisoner of war," just as they did with the SLA’s assertion that the U.S. had declared war on African Americans. Obviously the problem of race is not a cause for war; rather, it, like the growth of terrorism, calls for serious thinking about why people lash out in such destructive ways.

SLA members were eventually apprehended and, in keeping with western civilization’s adherence to the rule of law, were tried in a fair court and sentenced accordingly. Similarly, one of America's finest moments in the so-called War on Terror was the successful prosecution of Zacharias Mousawi, sometimes called the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in a civil court on criminal charges, and he will spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement.  Declaring war on terrorists allows them to call themselves warriors fighting against the world's superpower, while using police action makes it crystal clear what they are: heinous criminals.

In a recent speech President Bush defended his Iraq policies by quoting extensively from Osama bin Laden. He neglected to say that bin Laden condemned Saddam Hussein as traitor to Islam; or that bin Laden took eight months to recognize Al Qaeda in Iraq, three full years after the war began; or that foreign fighters have never been more than 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency.

At one time coalition forces were pursuing bin Laden in Afghanistan, but Bush lost interest and decided to invade Iraq instead. Money appropriated for the just war in Afghanistan was diverted to Iraq, and the result is the resurgence of the Taliban; and bin Laden is still taunting us with his ravings from Eastern Pakistan. Even though we are giving Pakistan $4 billion a year in military aid, they have recently withdrawn their forces from the area where we know bin Laden is hiding.

Osama bin Laden is not the head of any government nor does he command any troops. He communicates with the outside world by means of a complex system of couriers. The terror suspects recently arrested in Toronto, Bombay and London do not have any direct connections with him. 

As such, the Bush administration's comparisons between bin Laden and Hitler are just plain fear-mongering. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union were responsible for tens of millions of deaths, and they did constitute a serious threat to the existence of the Free World. Bin Laden and other terrorists have definitely made our lives more difficult and dangerous, but our ability to cope will not be helped by Bush's exaggerations and delusions.

The billions of dollars wasted in Iraq could have been better spent in protecting our ports, fully inspecting air cargo, increasing our intelligence capacity and controlling the spread of nuclear materials. The greatest causality in our invasion of Iraq and our unconditional support for Israel's recent "shock and awe" attack on Lebanon is the loss of personal intelligence. Muslims who reject militant Islam, and who were previously inclined to cooperate with American and European agents, are now far less likely to do so.

Recent polls demonstrate that Americans are smart enough to see through Bush's fear campaign. When asked to prioritize their national concerns, those polled made a clean distinction between Iraq and terrorism. The top issue at 51 percent was the failure of our Iraq policies, while only 9 percent thought that terrorists were the main problem.

American businesses recovered from 9/11 far more quickly than European companies, and that is due in part to our national strength in innovation and risk-taking. We have proved many times over that Ben Franklin was right when he said that "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." We have refused to be terrorized by Bush's phony War on Terror.