World War III: The War on Terrorism
Ladies & Gentlemen,
The whole world experienced the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington with
strong emotions. Those attacks targeted the economic and military symbols of American
superpower. Soon after the devastation, President Bush declared the war on terrorism by
pointing the finger at both the terrorist organizations themselves and the countries that
sheltered and protected them.
Because of the complex and nebulous nature of terrorism
and the geographic spread of these organizations, the war on terrorism, given its multiple
sides and scopes cannot be but global, and hence the Third World War itself.
But the world's shock at the
apocalyptic spectacle of September 11 stood in the way of a thorough analysis of its
consequences, and many in official state positions did not understand the message and
magnitude of the change in American thinking, but rather thought the American reaction was
simply a typical act of reprisals.
In reality, though, a political
earthquake had convulsed the other side of the Atlantic. The attacks on the American
sanctuary in its most sacred and heretofore untouchable symbols had turned upside down the
foundations of existing American foreign policy.
A few days after the catastrophe, at a
mass held in memory of the victims at the Washington National Cathedral and attended by
the entire American political class, President Bush said that the war began "with the
terrorists' choice", but will end "at a time and place of our choice".
In record time, an American reaction
was developed under the impulse of a never-before-seen international solidarity. That
reaction would be articulated along four principal axes, not all of them proceeding at the
same speed, but all serving the same ultimate objective:
- Attacking terrorist formations
- Attacking countries that hosted and supported terrorist organizations
- Creating all necessary legal, political, diplomatic, and military tools for waging this
war
- Finally, addressing the fundamental roots of the problem of terrorism
The war on Al-Qaeda was the first
episode of the struggle against terrorist organizations, which rapidly took many forms: A
global manhunt for the leaders and cadres of these organizations; the destruction of their
military and operational infrastructures; and a hunt for their financial assets and
sources of funding.
Through international coordination,
most notably in the field of intelligence, and a number of military actions (war on
Afghanistan, pre-emptive assassinations in Yemen, arrests in Pakistan, etc.), the
Americans waged, and continue to wage, their fight against terrorist structures and groups
throughout the world.
Yet although this military initiative
against terrorist networks is a necessary condition to neutralize the harmful potential of
these groups, it is by no means sufficient to completely eradicate terrorism. Beyond
attacking the safe harbors and financial sources provided by others to the terrorist
groups, action must be expanded to reach the roots of this evil, namely the
terror-generating regimes that are its creators and that will never stop creating new
terror entities to replace the ones that are being destroyed.
Hence the seeking target on which the
Americans have focused, which is the states supporting or harboring terrorists such as the
Taliban who, as rulers of Afghanistan, were the first to be brought down. Still, other
countries were not forgotten. Saudi Arabia was subjected to American pressures unheard of
in the history of friendship between the two countries. Having being criticized for being
the primary financier of terrorism, and embarrassed for being the country of origin of
most of the September 11 hijackers, Saudi Arabia was stripped of its privileged status and
has since expended large efforts to correct its misdeeds and return to the good graces of
America.
Iraq was the theater of the latest war,
also undertaken under the same chapter of the fight against countries supporting terrorism
or countries that are capable of providing terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
Syria and Iran, under enormous
pressures for the past several weeks and seriously warned to change their behavior in a
fundamental way, have now joined the previously cited examples, which lends support to the
unrelenting pursuit of this war against states that sponsor terrorism.
The third axis along which the United
States were activated soon after the attacks was to put in place all the necessary means
to wage this world war.
Internationally, and exploiting an
unprecedented wave of sympathy, the Americans mobilized all existing institutions: At the
UN they pushed for a vote in favor of resolution 1373; in NATO they activated Article 5
that mandates the solidarity of member countries with any one member in case of aggression
or war; In the United States itself, they introduced and passed several laws allowing a
better control of immigration, and the interdiction and asset seizure of terrorist
organizations, and finally political bills such as the US Patriot Act that imposes
sanctions on any country that supports or shelters terrorists.
Add to that the creation of a
Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of preparing the country against new
threats and better coordinating the activities of US bureaucracy by addressing the gaps
behind its failure at preventing the September 11 attacks.
The third avenue taken by the United
States is to search for the underlying reasons for terrorism in order to address them,
which testifies to the vision and the global and complete understanding of the totality of
the problem. Form this standpoint, the Americans have identified two major factors: The
Israeli-Arab conflict, one of the principal catalysts and drivers exploited by terrorist
organizations, and the Middle Eastern dictatorships that provide the main support to
terrorism.
In June 2002, when he announced the
roadmap for the Middle East, President Bush was the first US President to officially
commit himself to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Americans saw in this new
order and in the dynamic of war a unique opportunity to finally succeed in resolving the
Israeli-Arab conflict. Today more than ever, emboldened by their recent victory in Iraq
which created an extraordinary geopolitical fait
accompli and shattered the existing balance of terror, the United States is on the
offensive against the last bastions of anti-peace stubbornness and obstinacy. In the end,
these bastions will have to give way to either political pressure or, yet again, military
intervention.
Moreover, and beyond the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Americans have come to realize the need to reshape the
Middle East whose principal ailment, namely its dictatorships, is in large part
responsible for the problem of terrorism. In fact, oppressed societies living under the
yoke of dictatorships, with hatred against the West - the US in the lead - as their only
allowed safety valve, have become fertile ground for the recruitment of terrorists and for
the proliferation of extremist and Islamist movements.
The stabilization of the Middle East
requires a radical change in all its ruling regimes, either through reform or through
their toppling, and the abandoning of the policies of compromise with terrorist regimes
whose indirect legacy is no less than the attacks of September 11.
In his speech last May 9 at the
University of South Carolina, President Bush reiterated one more time: "In the era of
global terror and weapons of mass destruction, what happens in the Middle East matters
enormously to America. The bitterness of that
region could bring violence and suffering to our own cities. The advancement of freedom
and peace in the Middle East will reduce this bitterness and increase our security".
Through this campaign for the
democratization of the Middle East, which will bring an end to the dictatorships and
counter the totalitarian aspirations of theocratic regimes and fundamentalist groups, the
Americans are fighting another type of battle that falls within their same global campaign
to defeat terrorism.
Some skeptics will doubt this radical
American transformation, or in the least, underestimate it because they still do not
understand its magnitude or its sincerity, and remain driven to this position by a long
history of American policies that are high on principle but poor on real frontline
achievements. In effect, for a long time the Americans practiced an often-absurd policy of
complacency, tolerating not only dictatorial regimes but also the most fundamentalist of
regimes, as long as they served their economic or political interests. The support they
provided the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan - the future Taliban and Usama Bin Laden - in their
fight against the Soviet Union is one such telltale example of the absurdity of this
policy.
However, this policy, which was
tolerated in both its direct and collateral losses was contracted out, i.e. it was limited
to third-party victims even when these were US allies or plain innocent peoples, could no
longer be acceptable when its consequences and primary targets became the United States
itself, in its people and its land.
The direct attack, of which the
American superpower was the victim and by its very nature trespassed over all conventions
of war and resistance, left the United States with no choice but total and global war
against terrorism. In a letter to the American people at the one-year commemoration of
September 11, President Bush could not have been clearer on this new American position:
"Throughout history, freedom was
threatened by wars and terror; it was challenged by the clash between the will of powerful
states and the designs of tyrants; it was put to the test by widespread poverty and
scourges; what has changed since September 11 is the appreciation of our society of the
urgency of those problems and the new opportunities that we have at our disposal to
further the triumph of freedom over its long-standing enemies. The United States accepts
without hesitation its responsibilities as a leader in this great mission".
So this choice that was imposed on
America, will in turn be imposed by America on other countries who will quickly find
themselves confronted to one of two choices: Be against terrorism and assume their
responsibilities in the efforts to eradicate it, or else be on the side of the terrorists
and bear the consequences.
The new international fait accompli resulting from the suicide attack
will require an absolute support to whatever measures the Americans decide to take and an
agreement with their interpretation of terrorism and their definition of its
characteristics. In other words, there can be no other lexicon to describe terrorism other
than the American one.
This new American view of terrorism
will inevitably lead to a confrontation with many countries, especially Arab and Islamic
countries, since whatever the United States considers terrorism is seen as resistance by
those countries, and what is accepted and allowed by some to eliminate past, present, or
future terrorists is rejected by others. And it is from these two opposite
perspectives that World War III has been initiated, which will end in the eradication of
the terrorists and the fall of the regimes that harbor and support them.
Meanwhile, this divergence in
perspective between the Americans and those hostile to them was to expand to the camp of
America's allies. The Bush doctrine announced in September 2002 and enshrining the
principle of pre-emptive strikes in case of danger was the central sticking point that led
to a serious breach among the allies. The breach was to turn into a confrontation and
would eventually paralyze the most important international body to-date, the UN Security
Council.
This fissure in the allies’ camp
could only be explained by the above-mentioned lack of understanding and appreciation by
certain countries of the magnitude of the change that took place in American strategic
thinking in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington.
When President Bush went to the UN on
September 12, 2002, it was to announce that he had already made up his mind to go to war
and was only asking for his partners' support, and not their authorization. This position
stemmed from a deep conviction that the security of the US was truly threatened.
How a country determines or defines
what a threat to its security is or is not depends on that country's specific history and
experience with terrorism, and is not a simple speculation in the future. Which
explains the disagreement that arose when the majority of the allies refused to follow the
Americans in their interpretation. The allies, it seemed, believed that their fight and
effort expenditures would be limited to their own borders, ignoring in this line of
thinking the complex web of interactions and the global scale of the conflict with
terrorism, in spite of the long-standing experience of some of the allies themselves with
terrorism.
For the sake of illustration, France
has repeatedly been the target of attacks in its recent history. In the 1980s, attacks
were perpetrated in Lebanon and in Paris by fundamentalist movements. In the 1990s, it was
the FIS in Paris, and more recently there were attacks in Pakistan. France did not adhere
to the American definition and took a course that could ultimately only lead to
confrontation and to serious consequences on the transatlantic friendship relationship
that emerged gravely compromised from the Iraqi test.
So where do things stand today?
The present environment will certainly modify classic international relations as we have
come to know them. It will impose a greater number of options but will allow less room for
negotiation and haggling. A mere glance at US Secretary of State Colin Powell's mission to
Damascus earlier this month reveals a new American posture vis-à-vis terrorist states,
which are now summoned to answer without delay or appeal to a list of clear and precise
demands.
In order to re-establish international
entente and win this war, there has to be agreement on a set of fundamental facts from
which to adopt common convictions:
Terrorism must be defined in its
broadest meaning, including anything that does not fall within the boundaries of existing
classical conventions regulating armed conflicts and wars, and anything that results in
victims not covered by these conventions. That definition must include, for example,
attacks on embassies even if they are official representatives of states and benefit from
the double protection of the Geneva Convention and diplomatic immunity.
Terrorist organizations must not be
considered distinct and separate from the terrorist regimes that are the real purveyors of
terrorism. Terrorist groups are created, operate for a while, and then are dissolved to
reappear under other names in other places, as long as the Purveyor State behind them
remains functional.
It is noteworthy to recall that if
pirates have disappeared from the seas, it is because they were attacked at their source,
in the harbors that served as launching pads and hideouts for them.
In conclusion, what outcome should we
expect of this World War III?
As uncertain as it is to predict the
change in thinking that may result from it, it is possible and certainly desirable that it
will lead to the end of the wars between gods and demons, between good and evil on earth,
and to the fall of the culture of death that drives men to crime and suicide.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for
your attention.
General Michel Aoun