Amsterdam Forum: So how are we to now judge this war on terror?

[dajoki]

Whose winning the War on Terror?
Transmission date: Sunday 29 July 2007Sarah Johnson

26-07-2007

"The success of the war on terror has been in the standard counter-terrorism terms... the great failure has been in countering the ideology and in fact it's contributed to that ideology's spread. That clearly is a major problem, because that's where the future problem comes from."
British journalist, Jason Burke
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/features/amsterdamforum/070729af


It's coming up to six years since the September 11th terror attacks on the United States in 2001, and the start of the subsequent so-called global war on terror.

<<snip>>

But is that 'war on terror' nevertheless being lost? And have the tactics used in it, spawned a more dangerous threat?

<<snip>>

So how are we to now judge this war on terror?

Panellists:
This week Amsterdam Forum brought together three journalists who've been following developments since 9/11: Hans de Vreij,Reinout van Wagtendonk, Jason Burke.
Click to listen to the programme:http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/rnw/smac/cms/amsterdam_forum_20070726.wma

Key Quotes:

<<snip>>

Jason Burke on the weakness of the intelligence analysis:
"The Americans have always loved joining dots, they have a profound need in their analysis for evident and obvious targets where they can deploy their resources but they're very bad on the idea that you don't actually need a central core to orchestrate global terrorism. If you look at what's happening in Britain, there are very little links to al-Qaeda. What's happening is that you're getting very angry young men who are seeking the resources to execute their destructive, violent ambitions."

Reinout van Wagtendonk on the reaction of American people to the war on terror:
"For the American public it's hard to distinguish between the al-Qaeda central and the al-Qaeda franchise and that's because the Bush government very consciously is trying to muddy the water. He talks about Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda in Iraq as if it's exactly the same and he has to because of the discussion of the troop levels in Iraq and should they stay. President Bush strongly believes they should stay, but more public opinion thinks that they shouldn't, so he has the incentive to keep the connection because he says Iraq remains the central front in the International war on terror."

Jason Burke on President Bush:
"I genuinely don't think President Bush and those around him understand the nature of the threat against them."

<<snip>>

Jason Burke on the link between the war in Iraq and terrorist attacks:
"I've interviewed British security officials who state absolutely clearly that, yes, there was a threat before as Mr Bush rightly points out, but the threat is worse now. The invasion of Iraq has been profoundly counterproductive and has provided a training ground and an enormous propaganda boost. The bottom line is the justification of the militants is based on the idea that they are fighting a defensive war against an aggressive West that is set on the humiliation, domination
and division of the lands of Islam."

[Karenina]

1. Hot DAMN!!! EVERYONE on DU needs to read

and UNDERSTAND THIS. Amis INSIST upon using THEIR frame of reference wrt organization as the default template to grasp what is happening in the Middle East. This is the PRIMARY Fehler which leads to false conclusions all the way down the line. The insistence upon perceiving the structures of other cultures as carbon copies of those in the West BLINDS too many who are sincere in their desire to make sense of the insanity.

[dajoki]

2. Yes, I hope...

people will think deeply about this, and keep it kicked.:hi:

[Karenina]

3. I support your effort, Dajoki!

:kick: