And so, predictably over the past few days we’ve witnessed the usual chorus amongst the World’s self-appointed guardians of democracy. Bush began the rounds condemning the “cowardly acts”, whist Brown, Sarcozy and Karzai all piled in to register the usual ‘disapproval’ ‘condemnation’ and ‘disgust’. Vladimir Putin, perhaps spurred by his recent selection as Time Magazine’s Person of The Year, went one better, declaring the assassination an act of ‘terrorism’.

At a time when Russia’s post-Soviet hangover grows more distant by the day, it’s interesting that it was Sheriff Putin, rather than the White House Cowboys, who was so keen to make the connection between the current anarchy in Pakistan and the bearded-man-of-whom-no-one-dare-speak. Five years ago, you can guarantee that Bush wouldn’t have missed a heartbeat in pinning this one on Mr. Bin Ladin and his vile cohorts. Instead, in a hangar in Texas, The President’s face was one of a man counting down the days until 20th Jan 2008 every bit as impatiently as the rest of us. He didn’t answer questions, nor did he give any indication of what this meant for American policy in Pakistan. It was a far cry from Moscow.

So why the timidity? Well, part of the answer lies in the fact that Bhutto’s assassination, personal tragedy aside, has left American policy in the area in one hell of a mess. To put it mildly, America backed the wrong horse, pouring billions of dollars into a regime which it now feels obliged to condemn as a pariah and leaving the region and American interests there at greater risk than any other point in recent history.

Bhutto offered a handy route out of that mess; a player ideally placed to act as a bridge between US interests whilst, for a change, also enjoying popular support within her own country. With her death, the US is fast running out of options in a nuclear-armed country which, regardless of your view of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, is of far greater strategic importance than either. George Bush might not have been so keen to blame Al Qaeda for the crime simply because, at this stage, he’d like to leave his options open. Even he now realises that the ‘war against terror’ narrative simply isn’t going to wash, with recent events now leaving policies shaped by that simplistic world view more or less in shreds.

That said, for an individual who claims to want nothing more than to be the World’s number one defender of democracy, Bush’s policy in Pakistan over the past 8 years has been strangely inconsistent. When Pakistan’s elected government was toppled by the army in 1999, led by a military general Pervez Musharaff, the rest of the world quite rightly denounced it and called for the restoration of democracy in the region. The Commonwealth suspended the rogue state, whilst the EU promptly suspended a partnership agreement. In comparison to today, and what had come before, such foreign policy priorities in the 1990s appear positively ethical.

Then came 9/11, which turned a White House of parochialists not much bothered with the World, into one determined to use the full might of America to shape the World to a Texan worldview. In the immediate days after the attacks, Richard Armitage, Deputy US Secretary of State, had promised Musharraf’s intelligence director that the US would bomb the country “back into the stone age” if they didn’t cooperate in shutting down Bin Ladin. The military dictator of Pakistan, sensing, like Blair, that this was his chance to legitimise himself as a World statesman, readily agreed.

Within days, every single news outlet of the World went from referring to Pervez not as ‘General’, as before, but ‘President’. Immediately ‘aid’ in the form of new weaponry for the Pakistani army (yep, the one that had only a couple of years before toppled a democratic government), began flowing in, going from $9.1million between 1999-2001, to $4.7billion a year (that’s a 50,000% increase), as did lucrative trade agreements and personal endorsements for Pakistan’s courageous leader, taking a stand against the forces of tyranny. Thus, for a time, at least, the US had found itself a staunch ally and the military dictator had succeeded in transforming himself into a guardian of democracy.

6 years on to 2007 however, and, mirroring Bush’s other blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan wasn’t looking so hot either. Musharraf’s contribution to the US war effort in the Afghan border regions of Waziristan wasn’t winning him many friends amongst his own population, while at the same time, human rights organisations noticed that the President’s definition of ‘terrorist’ happened to include his political opponents. Add to that growing frustration at the lack of terrorist scalps being delivered in return for Washington’s $4.7bn investment, and Musharraf was clearly in hot water. The time, even Bushites realised, was soon approaching when they’d have to wash their hands of him.

If, 3 months ago, you’d wanted clues as to what Musharraf did next, you might look back to the example of another US ally, back in the days of another Republican president, an equally vocal opponent of tyranny. His name was Saddam Hussein, and despite being, like Musarraf, to put it lightly, of dubious political origins, was, nonetheless for a time a key American ally. Over the course of his rule he received $350bn in Western loans, American military intelligence and arms in return for his courageous stand against the forces of Soviet and Islamic extremism in Iran. In addition, there were the countless atrocities against his own people, rigged elections and all the other features of his rule which it now suits US interests to draw attention to.

At the time, of course, as with Musharraf, such actions were no barrier to partnership with Uncle Sam. As long as Saddam followed America’s short-termist agenda for the region, he was safe. But, as a child who is ‘given an inch and takes a mile’, it becomes inevitable that the dictator would push his luck too far. When this time came with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Western governments and and the media alike suffered from a sudden, collective bout of amnesia. Hands were promptly washed, and the sides reverted to type. The dictator freed himself from the shackles of respectability, unleashing upon his population an even greater degree of brutality, whilst his sponsors, their hands now clean, reverted to their role as protectors of democracy, giving him a good thumping in the process.

If that parallel doesn’t take your fancy, you could look to Iran itself, prior to the rise of the Ayatollahs who Saddam was sent to defeat. The Shah of Iran, like Musharraf, was brought to power in a coup against a democratically elected government, gradually tightening his grip on power whilst enjoying American and British support. This is a story which can be repeated throughout the Middle East, South East Asia and, most famously, Central America, take your pick.

In the days following 9/11, we were told the US was done with these old games. That it would no longer tolerate dictators or give room to those who sheltered tyrants. That it was a friend of democracy, and a friend of free people, everywhere. For all my misgivings about the Bush regime, I wanted to believe him. The photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with a 1980s Saddam said it all though. As we’ve seen in our less-than frosty dealings with Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia over the past 8 years it’s business as usual.

We are, as usual, backing the wrong horses, pouring money into the regimes of tyrants, turning their people against us, and reaping the ‘blowback’ that inevitably comes a few years later when we outsource our dirty work to dirty men, who are then overthrown in favour of even more extreme, hostile regimes. Oblivious, we shrug and continue to pour taxpayer’s billions into the pockets of extremists, and think that making deals with dictators to consider elections at some point in the future constitutes a path to democracy.

The question of what Musharraf did next should, by now, be obvious. He suspended the constitution, he shut down the press, called a state of emergency, and then used his failure to bring security to the country as an excuse to postpone elections. Battening down the hatches, he played out the same script as every other American ally-turned-pariah over the past 50 years. Cornered by his own people, his political opponents, The West and Islamic extremists within his own country, Musharraf is no longer a man in control of his own destiny. The question that really matters now is not what Musharraf, but what the current administration, and especially the next one, chooses to do, next.

Well firstly, I’m here to tell you that the war on terror can’t be won, because it doesn’t exist.

What is terror? Can you fight it? How do you fight it? Why do we face terror?

Why hasn’t anyone asked any of these questions?

Nope, they’re too difficult. The thing is, following the attacks of Sept. 11th. Everyone was just too shocked, too amazed, and too angry to ask logical, rational questions like that.

Questions with answers that might be difficult to face, questions that might make us reconsider our actions, questions that might change the way we live. Questions that make us feel uncomfortable as we realize its’ not black and white, that there are no easy answers.

So lets ask the questions.

What is terror? Terror is not a man. Terror is not an organization, terror is not an army. Terror is a verb. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, terror is simply ‘extreme fear’

Now, George W Bush, has at his command the most technically advanced military in history. He heads the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. The United States military has the most sophisticated equipment, the largest navy, and the fastest aircraft.

With these, the United States (not forgetting its loyal allies of course) have the ability to attack and kill just about anyone, and anything on the face of the planet. The opposition in a few minutes time will stand up and tell you that Al Qada is on the run, that they’ve been chased out of Afghanistan, that this ‘apparatus of evil’, is in disarray.

That may be true, that may not be, but I believe that’s irrelevant. Bombing Al Qaeda, freezing their bank accounts, arresting their members is a pointless waste of time. Why? Because killing terrorists and destroying their bases isn’t killing and destroying terrorism, they’re merely the people that embody it.

Those members of the house who are familiar with Greek mythology will remember the Hydra, a fearsome monster with several heads. It was a threat! It wanted to kill us all! It must be confronted! Yep, that’s’ right, what they needed was a war on hydra! So along comes the hero Hercules with his sword, and hacks the hydra’s head off. Easy. Simple. Or is it? Because from that severed neck, sprouted a pair of new heads, with knashing teeth, beady eyes, and a nice big appetite. So he hacked those off. Along came some more, and he hacked those off. Needless to say, before long, Hercules was a dead man.
Today, ladies and gentlemen, we face a Hydra. We can hack its’ head off, we can destroy Al qaeda, we can kill bin laden, but for every terrorist you kill, there’ll be two more to take their place. The truth is, we can’t kill it. There are always going to be people that hate us, there is always going to be a threat, to kill every person that would ever take up arms against us, would be to defeat evil itself, a job I fear even the might of the United States is not up to.
Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that we do live in fear. We do suffer horrendous and barbaric attacks, and don’t think for one minute that I don’t deplore the deaths of any innocent person or for one minute exonerate those responsible. But the fact remains, there are people out there who hate us, and we’d be doing ourselves a severe disservice to assume that every single one of them is an unhinged religious radical.

When our leaders stand up and tell us that those that support terrorists hate freedom, liberty, and all the lofty ideals upon which our societies are based, he’s wrong. The people of Palestine who danced on the streets following the atrocities of 9/11- were they all evil terrorists? Their actions were wrong, misguided, and sicken us all, but we should not be so quick to assume that they hate these things. The thing is, the America they see stands for none of these things. To them, it is arrogant, selfish, self interested, even provocative, and the comments of many of our leaders support these ideas.

We must not forget that this is not a war between two nations, but one between nations and extremists. If we allow extremists on our side to take over, it will become even more destructive. While Al Jazerra broadcasts a tape from Osama Bin Laden claiming this is a war against Islam, CBS is interviewing men who say that ‘Islam is an evil religion’, and flouting their belief that ‘ Mohammed was a Terrorist’. Words such as these only galvanize the World against us. Tough rhetoric, bombs and destruction do not make people love nor sympathise with us.

We’re not a crusade, any more than they’re on a Jihad, and we should not forget this. The notion that America and it’s allies are against the Muslim world is furthered by the it’s continued support of Israel. No matter who is to blame for the bloodshed, it is American military aid that bulldozes Palestinian homes, and kills without trial alleged terrorists. There are terrorists among them, people whose frustration has boiled over to the point of using their lives in what they believe is the defense of their way of life, but for the Israelis to punish all Palestinians, with the perceived support of America, is wrong.

You cannot simply hack this hydra’s head off. You cannot treat the symptoms of this disease that blights the world, you cannot defeat terrorism by simply killing the terrorist.

A World free of terrorists but full of hatred for us will simply breed more terrorists. Do not think this outpouring of hatred against us can be cancelled out by more blood destruction and chaos. Do not let the legacy of the 3000 that died that day be the unleashing of a futile attempt to destroy evil itself.

Instead of living with the fear and suspicion of a nation at war, let us encourage our neighbours across the Atlantic and our own government to treat the World with respect and trust.

Instead of bombing nation after nation, destroying home after home in a global war of madness, let us support nations that struggle, let us build homes for those who have none, let us use the money we would have spent on missles, on earning the respect and admiration of the world.

Because guess what?
People with full stomachs don’t hate us for being prosperous.
People Educated don’t fall for the lies spread by terrorists.
People who have freedom in life do not seek freedom in death.
People who have the chance to change the world through peaceful means do not seek to change the world by making us live in fear.

that will result Remove the reasons for terrorism, remove this evil hatred of America and it’s allies, and you will remove the terrorists. Take away the causes, and the truly evil ones, who have no political or religious motives, will be isolated. They will have no desperate or disenfranchised young people to recruit, and terrorist organizations will wither and die. And then, and only then, we will have won the war against terrorism.

And so the next logical question is, If we live in fear, ‘in the shadow of terror’, then how can we fight it?

a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
• noun 1 extreme fear. 2 a cause of terror. 3 the use of terror to intimidate people. 4 (also holy terror) informal a person causing trouble or annoyance.
Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition here are going to stand up in a minute and tell you that our lives are in danger. That there are people out there who will stop at nothing to kill us all. They’re gonna tell you that these men are inhuman, that they hate freedom, that terrorism is something that must be defeated at all costs. You’re gonna be told that the only way to defeat it is to fight it, that we’ve gotta confront this on all fronts.

They’re gonna tell you that to beat a killer, you’ve gotta kill them first. They’re gonna tell you that its’ ok for the government to bug my phone, track my computer, imprison me without trial, because at the end of the day, it’ll mean I don’t die in a terrorist attack.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the War on terror is a myth. It’s a smokescreen, its’ a sham. Its’ also a piece of political genius.

What has our action in Iraq accomplished, other than to give Al Qaeda time to regroup following our botched escapade in Afghanistan? It has split the nations of the free world, destroying international relations on a scale not seen in decades, disuniting us, and tearing apart the institutions that, however inefficient and weak, offered us the best opportunity of bringing the world together around one table. Saddam Hussein is gone, but where is he? Freedom has been brought to Iraqis, which I agree, they will one day thank us for, if they survive the anarchy and chaos, which, under the leadership of the United States, Britain and 25 other nations (mostly from the developing world, enticed or threatened for the sake of lucrative trading agreements), shows no sign of abating.

Iraq is becoming a Mecca for terrorists. Where Saddam Hussein brought tyranny and security (at dreadful cost), anarchy is prevailing. With the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime gone, and security on the streets a distant prospect, Iraq is fast becoming a place for any young aspiring jihadist. Just as Al Qaeda learned their line of work in the Mountains of Afghanistan in the war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Iraq is becoming the training ground for the next generation of terrorists. With American soldiers out in the streets, in heavily insufficient numbers, a resentful population, and with no security, Iraq is the ideal target for any young radical who dreams of jihad against America.

The Irony of Iraq is that despite its’ almost self-defeating consequences, it was never a haven for terrorism or a hotbed of Islamic radicalism. Saddam Hussein was not sympathetic to Bin Laden and his religious motives, rather, like most dictators, he was merely motivated by a dangerous lust for power, and all the wealth, guns, and women that came with it. He was the ‘godfather’ of Iraq, running it along much the same lines as a gangster. Iraq was the ‘family business. Besides, Iraq was on America’s agenda long before 9/11, and although I agree that it would have been necessary to confront it at some point, It is wrong to convince ourselves that Iraq ever posed any significant threat through links with terrorism, or to equate the cold, intelligent, ideologically driven Osama Bin Laden to a corrupt, inefficient, and merely power-hungry dictator that remains in Iraq (as far as we know), having it seems, deluded himself into thinking he can one day reclaim power.

At home, too, the War on Terror is having a disastrous effect on our society, as law after law such as the Patriot Act is introduced allowing the government to spy on US Citizens and detain them without trial, slowly threatening our civil liberties, and the very freedom we aim to protect. Our treatment of those suspected of terrorism in Guantanamo Bay has shown how easily the terrorists can corrupt our principles and rights, which apply to all, even terrorists. Even our right to protest against the actions of our governments are being eroded not by the law but by our societies, as our of fear shock, and insecurity, we are being reduced to nations of flag-waving Chihuahuas, forced by those around us to stay silent, to wave our flags and support our government, lest we be accused of support for terrorism. Religious intolerance, one of the causes of 9/11, is being fuelled by our reaction to the war on terror, bringing suspicion, hatred, and fear into our communities of all Muslims and those of Islamic and Arab heritage. We seek to protect our freedom by suppressing it, to fight intolerance while becoming intolerant, to bring democracy while suppressing those who speak out against us, and to destroy those who hate us while caring nothing of what others think of us.

Those that suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order. – John Lindsay

While America, with or without its allies, can destroy all those that hate it, no amount of guns, bombs, and missiles can make people love us. As long as people hate us, there will always be terrorists no matter how many we kill. The War on terrorism is only escalating this hatred, spreading the pain and destruction of downtown New York all over the world. It can win a war anywhere, kill anyone it wishes, and destroy any regime is disapproves of, but as it is painfully learning in Iraq, one thing it cannot do alone is win peace.

Global turmoil, destruction, and resentment should not be the legacy of those that died on September 11th, 2001. Further hatred, war and destruction will only multiply itself, the consequences of which we will have to live with for years to come. Two years of this has brought little that we can be proud of, nor a safer world. The cost of this global crusade is costing Americans more than money, for our future will be shaped less by the events of 9/11 than by our response to it. The future, freedom, and standing of America in the world is being destroyed by reckless decisions made by a government that seems committed not to peace and true security for Americans, but the implementation of policies that prior to September 11th would have been unthinkable. Next year it is time for a new direction, something that only Americans can provide, and for which the rest of the world can only hope.

We need to sit down and remember why we are fighting this war against terrorism. Is it so that we who perceive ourselves to be ‘right’ can act as we see fit against any regime that dare threaten or oppose us? Or is it because we believe in the principles of tolerance, freedom, democracy, and the rule of law? Will the new post-9/11- world-order we are fighting for stand for these values? If so, then why are dozens of prisoners being held without charge and trial in Cuba? Our civil liberties are being eroded away, as the rule of law is compromised in the name of freedom and democracy. ‘Saddam Hussein would not give us the same treatment’, I hear the hawkish right shout- yes, that is true, but should we ourselves descend into terror in the process of fighting it? Our values and beliefs for which we are fighting must not be destroyed in the process of defending liberty or we have already lost.

The UN should, and for the sake of a stable future, must have the authority, impartiality, and power to form, and implement rule of law over nations, lest we return to the darkest hours of the 20th century with all the bloodshed associated with it. The turning point in our search for democracy was when we realized that no person should be above the law. The same should apply to nations; to act unilaterally is to turn your back on democracy and the rule of law among nations. George W. Bush in September gave the United Nations a choice; support the United States and do as America believes is right, or become insignificant. How can it expect Iraq and other ‘rouge states’ to comply with the decisions made by the UN when it itself threatens to flout international opinion, and is withholding millions of dollars in dues?

As the worlds only Superpower, with unparalleled economic might and military muscle, the United States should heed the advice of its’ friends and allies, and learn the lessons of the mistakes made in the past. The nations of Europe and Asia, have all paid the price of mistakes made in the name of empire, each sure of their moral righteousness, and with the power to implement such a world view. They each in turn betrayed the beliefs on which they were based, resulting in the horrors of Colonialism and Empire.

The United States is in a very different position today, there is much more at stake, and the fight much less clear, against an enemy who can take any shape or form. Yet there are still comparisons to be made, and history to be heeded. The message is clear: In fighting for your values, do not destroy them

George Bush, however, is wrong to say that they hate what America truly stands for. The people of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and others long for peace, prosperity, liberty and freedom. But the America they see stands for none of these things. To them, it is arrogant, selfish, self interested, even provocative, and the comments of many of our leaders support these ideas. We must not forget that this is not a war between two nations, but one between nations and extremists. If we allow extremists on our side to take over, it will become even more destructive. While Al Jazerra broadcasts a tape from Osama Bin Laden claiming this is a war against Islam, CBS is interviewing men who say that ‘Islam is an evil religion’, and flouting their belief that ‘ Mohammed was a Terrorist’. Words such as these only galvanize the Iraqis, and others, against us.

This is not a crusade, nor is it a Jihad, and we should not forget this. The notion that America and it’s allies are against the Muslim world is furthered by the it’s continued support of Israel. No matter who is to blame for the bloodshed, it is American military aid that bulldozes Palestinian homes, and kills without trial alleged terrorists. There are terrorists among them, people whose frustration has boiled over to the point of using their lives in self-defense, but for the Israelis to punish all Palestinians, with the perceived support of America, is wrong.

Currently, Iran is in a dilemma. As the world squares up for war in Iraq, a choice has to be made. To side with Iraq would be unthinkable; Iranian civilians bear the horrific burns and scars of Saddam’s chemical weapons from the 1989 war. However, supporting America would be almost as incomprehensible. They have not forgotten that during that war, America supported Saddam Hussein, even as he murdered his own people, and that America branded it an ‘axis’ of evil, even when they were ready for cooperation.

What George Bush needs to realize is that the war he fights is not a conventional war, and so cannot be fought the conventional way. We cannot win against the terrorists, lest we rid the world of evil, rooting out all that would take up arms against the US, and such attempts will be futile. Remove the reasons for terrorism, remove this evil hatred of America and it’s allies, and you will remove the terrorists. Take away the causes, and the truly evil ones, who have no political or religious motives, will be isolated. They will have no desperate or disenfranchised young people to recruit, and terrorist organizations will wither and die. And then, and only then, we will have won the war against terrorism.