9/11 Seven Years On: An Inconclusive War
As we mark the seventh anniversary of the ‘9/11’ terror attacks, the only real conclusion I have is that the outcome of the subsequent ‘War on Terror’ is inconclusive. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that it is not clear what ‘victory’ is. For the West, is victory merely preventing further terror attacks, or is it purging the Muslim world of radical militants and anti-Western ideology? And what would constitute victory for al-Qaeda? Would this entail more massive attacks, or does it require the overthrow of pro-Western governments in the Muslim world and their replacement with theocracies?
First, a review of the most significant events that have happened:
• A US-led Western invasion of Afghanistan and the toppling of the Taliban.
• A major expansion of the US military presence globally, and a more aggressive strategic posture.
• A US-led Western invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
• A series of major terror attacks in Bali (2002), Madrid (2004), and London (2005), as well as lower-key (but still deadly) attacks elsewhere.
However, it is also significant to note what has not happened:
• There have been no further 9/11-scale attacks, nor anything approaching that level of destruction.
• No Arab nor Muslim leaders have been overthrown by radical Islamist elements nor radicalised popular uprisings. (Pakistan’s President Musharraf was replaced by mainstream leaders.)
• There has not been a collapse of international air travel, nor a global depression brought on by 9/11.
Conclusions:
Overall, there seems to be a stalemate. Rapid US/Western military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq have descended into violent insurgencies, the former of which seems to be picking up, while the latter seems to be winding down. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be purged of pro-terrorist elements, but neither can be considered safe. Furthermore, as evidenced by the 2006 ‘Airlines plot‘, al-Qaeda is still dedicated to carrying out massive attacks.
On the other hand, the emergence of a pro al-Qaeda global caliphate seems inconceivable. As a first step, there would have to be revolutions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and this would appear to be highly unlikely. Moreover, the geographical and cultural diversity of the Muslim world precludes these countries from banding together into a new caliphate.
Meanwhile, US foreign policy objectives have for some years been reverting to the pre-9/11 world, namely Washington focusing on China and Russia as the real strategic competitors. I happen to believe that China is the only country that can realistically challenge the US as a global hegemon. It has the population, economic resources, military strength, and probably willingness (albeit non-aggressive) to do so. By contrast, Russia is too structurally weak.
The real unknown is how the US would respond to another 9/11-scale attack – or series of smaller attacks – on itself, which would force Washington to re-focus on al-Qaeda rather than China or Russia. This would give al-Qaeda a new momentum, and would probably have much bigger consequences on a global economy already weakened by the credit crunch.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
What do you mean by the ‘West’? Is Jordan part of the West? Thailand? Japan? Georgia? Colombia? These are key allies in the anti-terrorism fight.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Good question, and not an easy one to answer.
It depends on whether we are talking geopolitics or culture here. Since ‘Western’ leaders have downplayed the idea of a clash of civilisations, they probably regard the war as a political-military struggle. From that point of view, the ‘West’ would be the US, EU, and NATO, plus US Major Non-NATO Allies (MNNA), which incude Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Argentina, and several others.
However, if we are talking about a civilisational war, which is how many radical Islamists and staunch US and European conservatives view the struggle, then the ‘West’ would primarily consist of the US+Canada, and most of Europe, plus Australia-New Zealand.
Is Georgia ‘Western’?, you asked. Pres. Saakashivili clearly thinks so, but then he’s from the US-educated elite. I’m sure many Georgians want to be allied with the West, but that doesn’t make it culturally Western. Even though the Kingdom of Colchis (from Jason and the Argonauts) lies in Georgia, historically, the country has been influenced more my Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Iran than by Western Europe.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Indeed, staunch conservatives like yourself seem to view the current anti-terrorism struggle as the rich, white west versus the rest, but it certainly doesn’t cut it for me. NATO plus non Nato military and political allies encapsulate virtually all of the Western hemisphere and most of Asia. You can make theoretical Huntington-type distinctions but they do not refelct current reality.
Cultural arguments are not appropriate to this context in my view, as the cultural perception of the ‘west’ shifts so often and violently that commentators like RW now view Russia as an ‘other’, easily forgetting the close cultural, academic, political and commercial links between European and Russian elites for centuries up to and including now.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I agree that the definition of the term ‘West’ is fluid. As for whether this includes Russia, it’s difficult to say. There are indeed close ties as you point out, but I suspect that most US and Western Europeans perceive Russia as an ‘other’. Within Russia itself there has been a debate for centuries between the Westernisers and the Slavophiles, and now ‘Eurasianism’ is reporteldy on the rise. This cultural debate also pervades other countries such as Turkey, Japan, and several more. Most likely, there will be no clear cut answer.