Debating the war on terror

1. Debating the war on terror Theoretical Explanations

2. Terror as existential threat The war on terror has prompted an academic and policy debate which considers; • The long term enemy of the West • The significance of 9/11 • How to think about the war on terror

3. The Clash of Civilisations • Proposed by Samuel P. Huntingdon in 1997 this theory predates 9/11 and the War on Terror. • It was part of a search by Security Studies scholars to identify the next long term threat to the West after the Cold War. • It maintains that nations will be come more divided culturally as identity politics become more important in global relations. • Is very specific about the nature of where the threat will most likely come from.

4. Islam and the West • Huntingdon argues that there are many cultures present in the world but that Islam is the troublesome one. • He argues it encourages a loyalty to the religion that supplants the nation state, is hostile towards ideas such as democracy, liberty, individualism and universal human rights. • This makes it incompatible with Western values and he argues it should be avoided at all costs.

5. Clash of Civilisations & 9/11 • Huntingdon's work caused a furious debate in the academic world from 1997 onwards but 9/11 made the book a best seller. • It appears to explain Radical Islam’s approach to the West and offers us a paradigm through which groups such as AQ and ISIS make sense. • Osama bin Laden’s rhetoric fully supported the idea of a clash of civilisations and he often portrayed Islam as being at war with the West.

6. ISIS and Clash of Civilisations • AQ attempted to portray it’s conflict as a clash of civilisations and wanted the Muslim world to see itself at war with the West. • ISIS has been much more successful in promoting this view and has successfully convinced large numbers of Muslims in the West (foreign fighters) and the East (local support). • Is it beneficial to continue this view or does it play into the hands of ISIS?

7. Criticisms of the Clash of Civilisations • Might explain Radical Islam’s approach to the West but does not explain the West’s approach to Islam – especially the protection of Muslims in Bosnia 1995 & Kosovo 1999. • Assumes that Democracy and Universal Rights do not appeal to Islamic citizens – this does not fit with Arab Spring. • Also portrays Islam as homogenous and does not recognise the enmity between Sunni and Shia branches.

8. The End of history • Huntingdon’s work had partly been prompted as a response to Francis Fukuyama’s End of History thesis, proposed in 1992. • Fukuyama argued that with the fall of the Soviet Union signalled the triumph of Liberal Democracy and Capitalism. • This meant the end of history as history is the story of the progress of society towards an ideal form of Government. • Liberal Democracy equals Peace, Order and Prosperity.

9. Fukuyama and 9/11 • 9/11 appears to undermine the end of history idea as Radical Islam does not seek liberal democracy or capitalism. • Arguable that AQ and ISIS represent a backlash against liberal democracy. • Even the Arab Spring bought anti-democratic organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

10. WWIV and Norman Podhoretz • Originally a left wing intellectual Podhoretz broke ranks and moved across to the Right. • He has argued that the War on Terror should be thought of in terms of epochal challenges to Liberal Democracy. • The previous challenges have all been totalitarian and are known as the World Wars; WWI - Centre Right/ WWII – Far Right/ WWIII (Cold War) – Far Left.

11. War on Terror as WWIV • WWIV started on 9/11 when Islamo-facism attacked the U.S. but the stage was set for the conflict over the preceding 20 years. • This war may be against Islamo-facism but it is essentially the same enemy faced in the past 3 world wars. • Much of the problem comes from the reluctance of presidents pre- George W. Bush to use military force to deal with terrorists.

12. Terrorism as Existential Threat • This conflict squarely casts America as fighting for freedom, liberty and tolerance. • It is essential to the progress of the world that WWIV is an American victory as failure will see moral relativism become the norm. • America and The West MUST be willing to stand up for their values and go the distance – 40/50 years worth.

13. Issues with WWIV • Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya all prove that whilst America can defeat groups militarily it does not have the vision or political will to stay. • If the WWIV narrative is adopted then we essentially adopt CoC and have to face uncomfortable discussions about the role of Islam. • Would also entail facing up to difficult truths around Middle Eastern ‘allies’ like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt.

14. Gerges • Argued in his book The Rise and Fall of Al Qaeda that the War on Terror has been a miscalculation by the USA. • The U.S. is actually weaker militarily and internationally after Afghanistan and Iraq. • The War on Terror is based on the wrong assumption that the USA and The West are under continual attack from Radical Islam.

15. Bin Laden’s Gamble • Bin Laden was attempting to have the US lash out against the Umma and thus facilitate the Clash of Civilisations. • Outraged at this, the world’s Muslims would rise up and help AQ defeat America. • Despite Muslim politics remaining deeply anti-American this has not happened and bin Laden’s gamble has failed.

16. Failure of ‘bin Ladenism’ • 40% of the World’s Muslims did support bin Laden’s criticisms of America but actively rejected his terrorist methods. • It was only the apathy, not support, of this silent majority which allowed AQ to shape the political discourse present within Islam. • Despite having supported the views of bin Ladenism out of anger the categorical military defeat in Afghan has led to a realisation it was empty rhetoric.

17. Iraq as a step backwards? • Gerges arguments hold true up until the invasion of Iraq as the tightly identified goals enabled the Muslim world to accept the GWOT. • Invading Iraq widened the scope of the GWOT and has unleashed chaos in the region. • Lack of clear goals has played into the hands of Islamist propagandists and ceded the narrative to them.

18. Chomsky – Another alternative • Perhaps the War on Terror is an neo-Imperial programme designed to further American political interests. • By invading the Middle East America gains physical and strategic control over the energy supplies resident there. • The GWOT has failed to achieve its most basic requirement as it has increased the number of terrorist attacks.

19. Deep state • This failed GWOT serves political purpose in that it allows for a continued rhetoric of threat to be used. • In turn this justifies increased defence spending, which sends vast amounts of money directly into multi-national corporations which then endorse future politicians. • This ‘deep state’ then has the ability to further promote their desired aims irrespective of the wishes of the populace.