انتهت الحرب على الإرهاب ؟
لا نزال بحاجة لخوض حرب على
كلير بوليتكس - 26/4/2007
the War on Terror Over?
we still need to fight a war on terror?
answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the
West who are weary over
British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war
on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and
counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped
the term "long war" to describe the fight
against radical Islam.
influential book making the rounds - "Overblown:
How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate
National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them"
- argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly
Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser,
goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly
by the false idea of a war on terror - not the jihadists
onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998
called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein,
believes "war" is the "wrong
metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.
point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the
resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the
thinking may seem understandable given the
ineffectiveness of al-Qaida to kill many Americans after
9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave
Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested
periodically in both
have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to
kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did
in some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous
than past conventional threats. Autocrats in some
jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of
ways beyond altering the very nature of air travel.
Cartoonists now lampoon everyone and everything - except
Muslims. The pope must weigh his words carefully.
Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked abroad. A
single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led
to riot and death.
net result is that terrified millions in Western
societies silently accept that for the first time in
centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what
they think of Islam and the Koran.
everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water
plants depend on sophisticated computers and
communications. And you don't need a missile to take
them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United
States - not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our
borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships
dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.
germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas
could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored
division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered
rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear
deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome
death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead
radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich
know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting
control of Iraqi petroleum reserves - and they attempt
both all the time - will alter the world economy. Even
their mere threats give us psychological fits and their
sponsors more cash.
is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack
convince some that the real danger has passed. And when
we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral
to the war or only incites more terrorism.
despite the current efforts at denial, the war against
Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish
it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or
we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.
Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover
Institution, Stanford University, and author, most
recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the
Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian
War." You can reach him by e-mailing
لهذه المقالات لا يعني أنها
تعبر عن وجهة نظر المركز كلياً
من حق الزائر الكريم أن ينقل وأن ينشر كل ما يعجبه من موقعنا . معزواً إلينا ، أو غير معزو .ـ