Five years after

Five years after 9/11, the ‘War against Terror’ is still on. After five years of war against terrorism, President George Bush has finally recognised that this is not a war against a tactic — terrorism — but an ideological war.

In his speech to the Military Officers Association of America on September 5, he drew analogies with the Second World War against Nazism and Japanese militarism and the Cold War against Communism and specifically cited Sunni and Shia extremism as the enemies. He asserted, “This is the great ideological struggle of the 21st century — and it is the calling of our generation. All civilised nations are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism.”

To substantiate his claim that the extremists pose a threat which could establish a violent political Utopia across the Middle East — a ‘Caliphate’ — President Bush quoted from al-Qaeda documents captured in Afghanistan. He cited the views of Osama bin Laden that a compromise with infidels was not possible. Bush quoted the message of bin Laden earlier this year to the American people: “The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace for ever.”

For the first time, Bush cited Shia extremism as a threat along with Sunni extremism, though he did not club them together as a common threat. He said, “This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous and just as hostile to America and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda so far failed to do. In 1979 they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny and using that nation’s resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda.”

He asserted that the Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, has killed more Americans than any terrorist organisation except al Qaeda. He quoted Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and Iranian  President Ahmadinejad to substantiate his claim of their hatred for America.

According to Bush, “The Shia and Sunni extremists represent faces of the same threat. They draw inspiration from different sources, but both seek to impose a dark vision of violent Islamic radicalism across the Middle East.”

Therefore, he asserted, “If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don’t uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act. I am not going to allow this to happen — and no future American president can allow it either. America did not seek this global struggle, but we are answering history’s call with confidence and a clear strategy.”

He unfolded a five-point strategy called The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. The first point is to take the fight to the enemy. Second, to deny the enemy weapons of mass destruction. Third, to deny the terrorists the support of outlaw regimes. Fourth, to deny terrorist networks control of any nation or territory. Fifth, to deny terrorists new recruits by defeating their ideology and spreading the hope of freedom.

The speech made it clear that the war America is engaged in is being redefined. It is no longer a war against terror, but a war between the US and its allies on one side and
Sunni and Shia extremism on the other. It has taken five years for President Bush to arrive at this conclusion. The tenor of his speech, the formulation of his five-point strategy, its contents and his assertion all indicate that the Bush administration is prepared for a long war against extremism.

The speech did not have a major impact in the US, where the majority of people are not in favour of the war. While President Bush argued that US actions have disrupted al-Qaeda and weakened it and that the US is consequently safer now, the Democratic view is that the US is not yet safe enough and that is partly because of wrong policies pursued by the Bush administration.

Whether one agrees with the US or not, its policies are not the cause of Islamic extremism. Given the geo-strategic importance of the ‘broader Middle East’, the US cannot withdraw from the region. There is no guarantee that extremist terrorists will not continue their attacks on the US and Europe in a spirit of triumph. Since there is no prospect of a diplomatic or negotiated settlement with bin Laden and his brand of jehadis, the conflict is likely to be a prolonged one. It does not look as though this perspective has been thought through in this part of the world, particularly in India.

The writer is a strategic affairs analyst based in Delhi.