HOW TO LOSE A WAR

Source: Focus on Trade #68

HOW TO LOSE A WAR
By Walden Bello*

After over two weeks of Anglo-American bombardment of
Afghanistan, once one gets beyond the sound and fury of American
bombs and the smokescreen of CNN propaganda, it appears that in
the war between the United States and Osama bin Laden, the latter is
coming out ahead.

"MAKING THE RUBBLE BOUNCE"
It is doubtful if Washington has achieved anything of tactical or
strategic value except to make the "rubble bounce," as the
consequences of multiple nuclear explosions in one area were
cynically described during Cold War. Indeed, the bombing, which
has taken the lives of many civilians, has worsened the US's strategic
position in Southwest and South Asia by eroding the stability of the
pro-US regimes in the Muslim world. A radical fundamentalist
regime is now a real possibility in Islamabad, while Washington faces
the unpleasant prospect of having to serve ultimately as a police force
between an increasingly isolated Saudi elite and a restive youthful
population that regards bin Laden as a hero.

Meanwhile in the rest of the developing world, the shock over the
September 11 assault is giving way to disapproval of the US bombing
and, even more worrisome to Washington, to bin Laden's emergence
in the public consciousness as a feisty underdog skillfully running
circles around a big bully who only knows one response: massive
retaliation. A telling sign of the times in Bangkok and many other
cities in Southeast Asia is the way young people are snapping up bin
Laden T-shirts, and not only for reasons of novelty.

ANGLO-SAXON BROTHERHOOD
CNN images of US President George Bush, Prime Minister Tony
Blair, and US Secretary of State Colin Powell ticking off the latest
statement of support for the US mask the reality that Washington and
London are losing the propaganda war. Their effort to paint the
military campaign as a conflict between civilization and terrorists has
instead come across as a crusade of the Anglo-Saxon brotherhood
against the Islamic world. So jarring has British Prime Minister Tony
Blair's public relations drive to make Britain an equal partner in the
war effort that the foreign minister of Belgium, which currently holds
the presidency of the European Union, has felt compelled to criticize
Blair for compromising the interests of the EU.

In the aftermath of the September 11 assault, a number of writers
wrote about the possibility that that move could have been a bait to
get the US bogged down in a war of intervention in the Middle East
that would inflame the Muslim world against it. Whether or not that
was indeed bin Laden's strategic objective, the US bombing of
Afghanistan has created precisely such a situation. Moderate leaders
of Thailand's normally sedate Muslim community now openly express
support for bin Laden. In Indonesia, once regarded as a model of
tolerant Islam, a recent survey revealed that half of the respondents
regard bin Laden as a fighter for justice and less than 35 per cent
regard him as a terrorist.

The global support that US President George Bush has flaunted is
deceptive. Of course, a lot of governments would express their
support for the UN Security Council's call for a global campaign
against terrorism. Far fewer countries, however, are actually actively
cooperating in intelligence and police surveillance activities. Even
fewer have endorsed the military campaign and opened up their
territory to transit by US planes on the way to Southwest Asia. And
when one gets down to the decisive test of offering troops and
weapons to fight alongside the British and the Americans in the harsh
plains and icy mountains of Afghanistan, one is down to the hardcore
of the Western Cold War alliance.

TRANSLATING GUERRILLA WAR TO A GLOBAL SETTING
Bin Laden's terrorist methods are despicable, but one must grant the
devil his due. Whether through study or practice, he has absorbed the
lessons of guerrilla warfare in a national, Afghan setting and translated
it to a global setting. Serving as the international correlate of the
national popular base is the youth of the global Muslim community,
among whom feelings of resentment against Western domination were
a volatile mix that was simply waiting to be ignited.

The September 11 attacks were horrific and heinous, but from one
angle, what were they except a variant of Che Guevara's "foco"
theory? According to Guevara, the aim of a bold guerrilla action is
twofold: to demoralize the enemy and to empower your popular base
by getting them to participate in an action that shows that the all-
powerful government is indeed vulnerable. The enemy is then
provoked into a military response that further saps his credibility in
what is basically a political and ideological battle. For bin Laden,
terrorism is not the end but a means to an end. And that end is
something that none of Bush's rhetoric about defending civilization
through revenge bombing can compete with: a vision of Muslim Asia
rid of American economic and military power, Israel, and corrupt
surrogate elites, and returned to justice and Islamic sanctity.

LOST OPPORTUNITY
Yet Washington was not exactly without weapons in this ideological
war. In the aftermath of September 11, it could have responded in a
way that could have blunted bin Laden's political and ideological
appeal and opened up a new era in US-Arab relations.

First, it could have foresworn unilateral military action and announced
to the world that it would go the legal route in pursuing justice, no
matter how long this took. It could have announced its pursuit of a
process combining patient multinational investigation, diplomacy, and
the employment of accepted international mechanisms like the
International Court of Justice.

These methods may take time but they work, and they ensure that
justice and fairness are served. For instance, patient diplomacy
secured the extradition from Libya of suspects in the 1988 bombing of
a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, and their successful
prosecution under an especially constituted court in the Hague.
Likewise, the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia,
set up under the auspices of the ICJ, has successfully prosecuted
some wartime Croat and Serbian terrorists and is currently
prosecuting former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, though of
course much remains to be done.

The second prong of a progressive US response could have been
Washington's announcing a fundamental change in its policies in the
Middle East, the main points of which would be the withdrawal of
troops from Saudi Arabia, the ending of sanctions and military action
against Iraq, decisive support for the immediate establishment of a
Palestinian state, and ordering Israel to immediately refrain from
attacks on Palestinian communities.

Foreign policy realists will say that this strategy is impossible to sell to
the American people, but they have been wrong before. Had the US
taken this route, instead of taking the law--as usual--in its own hands,
it could have emerged as an example of a great power showing
restraint and paved the way to a new era of relations among people
and nations. The instincts of a unilateral, imperial past, however, have
prevailed, and they have now run rampage to such an extent that,
even on the home front, the rights of dissent and democratic diversity
that have been one of the powerful ideological attractions of US
society are fundamentally threatened by the draconian legislation being
pushed by law-and-order types like Secretary of Justice John
Ashcroft that are taking advantage of the current crisis to push through
their pre-September 11 authoritarian agendas.

NO WIN SITUATION
As things now stand, Washington has painted itself into a no-win
situation.

If it kills bin Laden, he becomes a martyr, a source of never-ending
inspiration, especially to young Muslims.

If it captures him alive, freeing him will become a massive focus of
resistance that will prevent the imposition of capital punishment
without triggering massive revolts throughout the Islamic world.

If it fails to kill or capture him, he will secure an aura of invincibility,
as
somebody favored by God, and whose cause is therefore just.

As Tom Spencer, a policy analyst of Britain's Conservative Party, has
observed, bin Laden has been turned into a "Robin Hood."

September 11 was an unspeakable crime against humanity, but the
US response has converted the equation in many people's minds into
a war between vision and power, righteousness and might, and,
perverse as this may sound, spirit versus matter. You won't get this
from CNN and the New York Times, but Washington has stumbled
into bin Laden's preferred terrain of battle.

*Professor of sociology and public administration at the University of
the Philippines and executive director of Focus on the Global South, a
program of research, analysis, and advocacy of the Chulalongkorn
University Social Research Institute in Bangkok, Thailand

*************************************************

Focus-on-Trade is a regular electronic bulletin providing updates and
analysis of trends in regional and world trade and finance, with an
emphasis on analysis of these trends from an integrative,
interdisciplinary viewpoint that is sensitive not only to economic issues,
but also to ecological, political, gender and social issues. Your
contributions and comments are welcome. Please contact us c/o
CUSRI, Wisit Prachuabmoh Building, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok 10330 Thailand. Tel: (66 2) 218 7363/7364/7365, Fax: (66
2) 255 9976, E-Mail: [email protected], Website:
http://focusweb.org. Focus on the Global South is an autonomous
programme of policy research and action of the Chulalongkorn
University Social Research Institute (CUSRI) based in Bangkok.

Focus on the Global South (FOCUS)
c/o CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 662 218 7363/7364/7365/7383
Fax: 662 255 9976
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Page http://www.focusweb.org

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/