The War on Terrorism

The 9/11 is one of the rarest events that had such an impact on the collective thinking of a society, and the fact that it was named after the date when it happened speaks about its uniqueness and exquisiteness. The terrorist act performed that day on the American soil has represented, considering the manner of its performance, its greatness and consequences, the destruction of symbols of American power. That is to say, this “spectacular” terrorist attack has shown that economically and military strongest, and by that the most stable country in the world, isn’t the safest one, that is, that power, whether it’s economic, military or political, or all of those together, is no longer a guarantee of security. It was then that we became aware that nobody, nowhere and ever, is not and cannot be immune to the politically motivated security phenomenon of terrorism, and that the only solution to this global problem was a general international war against it, which was initiated and is still being lead by the US. After that day, the world that we live in has changed, the atmosphere of increased tension and uncertainty took over, while the blade of primarily American intelligence repression in anti-terrorist campaign was very skilfully and deliberatively aimed towards the limitation of civil rights and liberties, and especially privacy.

           Until then, America’s political elite didn’t pay much attention to terrorism, focusing more on disabling the uprising of possible global competition (Russia, China and India), then providing economic wellbeing to its citizens and promoting democracy and human rights in the world. The cruelty and spectacularity of 9/11, as well as the shock that it had caused, then sense of insecurity, uncertainty and fear, have lead president Bush Jr. to instantly, with all available means of national power, stand up against the global terrorism.

           We can come to the conclusion that the main priority of the US in days after 9/11 was to urgently and with maximum efficiency disable Al-Qaeda’s transnational network, minimizing its capacity to the point where its further actions would be disabled or at least restrained, for start. That clearly indicates America’s fear that came from belief that this mega-terrorist organization has both, the will and capacities to carry out similar actions in the future. However, not even today, after a decade and a half of ongoing “War on Terrorism”, as well as on its beginning, it isn’t quite possible to estimate the real level and extent of the threat that Al-Qaeda and Islamic State represent.

           It is obvious that the 9/11 had represented a turning point in US’s modern history, but also in the world politics. Namely, only a couple of days after the shocking attacks America has initiated, as a main priority, a “Global War Against Terrorism” in which she remains the most engaged to this day, gaining mass international support. Until then, international aspects of combating terrorism were manifested with numerous initiatives, expert’s and scientifically-academic conferences, publications and documents of regional and global organizations, as well as binding international acts – international community stood up to terrorism with norms of international law, through legislation of various conventions and resolutions aimed towards raising the efficiency in combating terrorism, but also bringing to justice all those who are responsible for terrorist acts.

           The administration of American president George W. Bush Jr. started the “first war” in the 21st century, and the administration of his successor in the presidential office, Barack Obama, continued it, only by the name of “Transnational Unpredictable Operations”. The war itself includes a lot of military, political and legislative actions with a goal to stop and suppress international terrorism.

           Military operations in the first ten years of anti-terrorism war included armed combats in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as occasional bombings, armed interventions and support of American army and allies towards local anti-terrorism combat in Pakistan, Somalia, Philippines, Yemen, Kashmir and Mali. Unlike the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and later in Syria as well, the ones in other aforementioned countries and in the region of Kashmir were not directed against those countries or their regimes, but were, under the auspices of a global unconventional “War on Terrorism” along with their governments, more or less, organized and conducted against the terrorists hiding or acting in or from those lands.

           Many thought that the biggest absurd was the fact that America wept over itself on 9/11 and at the same time was the greatest power on Earth. However, that image presented by the media was actually created to use international empathy as a perfect alibi for the use of unlimited power with a peace of mind and with a complete justification of possible abuse of power. Patriotic enthusiasm, in America itself, which was huge in the early stages, gave President Bush as a political leader, but also as a supreme military commander, a total and complete clearance in his dealing with a wide variety of questions concerning anti-terrorist prevention in the US. He had wisely recognized the fear in the world and the willingness for action and promptly declared a “Preventive War” against terrorism. The name of this war has clearly defined the place where it will be fought (Middle East), the need for solidarity, and most importantly the need for a swift reaction. The use of the term “war” has also created an impression that the modern world has a unique enemy, embodied in Al-Qaeda and primarily its leader Osama bin Laden, but it has been changed by Obama by the term “operations”, moreover unpredictable, with an explanation that the concept of war against terrorism is too extensive and comprehensive that it could ever end.

           This isn’t a classic example of warfare between countries. It represents unconventional and asymmetric war of certain states against, primarily, non-state actors (terrorist organizations), but also certain regimes (state sponsors of terrorism) as those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are being represented. Thus, it is mainly directed towards global terrorist network, and not towards territorially based country. That is what makes it difficult because the identification of war goal isn’t clear and is practically disabled by American generalization of the enemy, which has been broadened, aside from Al-Qaeda to what Washington calls “International Terrorism”. However, that is only a tactical step that the US government has taken, so that it could at any time declare arbitrary victory in the war, risking, however, that possible future mega-terrorist attacks could show that such declaration could have been anticipated. Furthermore, it is impossible to deal with this kind of enemy in a diplomatic way, or by using any traditional means of territorial self-defence. The White House itself has stated on many occasions that the “War on Terrorism” is different from all the other wars so far, and that the means that are not military (soft power) are of equal importance and that the victory will be achieved in a different way than pure military definition of victory. Namely, it can’t be expected from terrorists to surrender in a classic military way in case of defeat.

           The hardest thing in this unconventional war, which is unlimited by time and space, is to measure its efficiency and progress. It is important to know that terrorism is a tactic that is used by many in the present, which it will be used in the future, as it was used throughout history, so that there isn’t a distinct physical enemy that could be defeated. Therefore, it is difficult to realize how the victory could be achieved, and the main problem is that this war is different from all the others, so the victory would have to be different as well. However, I believe that this war can end successfully, only if its goals are narrowly determined in terms of disabling Al-Qaeda’s network and breaking down today’s Islamic State. Naturally, this claim is highly hypothetical and as such is susceptible to radical revision, if the terrorists manage to carry out similar or even greater terrorist acts than the ones in September of 2001.

International Support and a Global Crackdown on Terrorists

           Since the beginning of the third millennium, terrorism has been identified as a major security risk and a global threat to the world and it was clear that, as such, its suppression requires engagement of the entire international community. Most countries have accepted Bush's invitation to take part in a global confrontation with regional and international terrorist organizations and groups. However, a fact that should be taken into account is that this decision was affected by the warning of President Bush that if other governments do not join the global anti-terror action, they are aligning themselves with the terrorists. Then, in fact, it was not true multilateralism, but forced alliance through the expression of America's power and supremacy in international politics.

           Anyway, the entire Western World has shown unconditional solidarity in American struggle against terrorism, which was also initially done by Russia, China and India. The evidence to support that is the fact that the governments of many countries, following the example of US, declared unlimited war against terrorism, forming various larger-scale international anti-terrorist partnerships. The most interesting, certainly is the one between two countries whose conflict lasted for decades, US and the Russian Federation, which was greatly intensified after terrorist attacks in Moscow in 2001. Also, Russian military interventions against Islamic State initiated in 2015 have confirmed that the relationship between Russia and US is the key factor of anti-terrorist combat and securing global security. Together, lead by mutual interests, these two countries can successfully face modern security threats and challenges, such as international global terrorism, and help with crisis and conflicts in different parts of the world, not only with the use of force, but also by managing constructive dialogues and cooperation.

           All available resources of international institutions that represent today’s main agents and actors of establishing and maintaining the peace and stability on global political scene, such as NATO, OSCE, UN, EU and its members, were instantly engaged and directly focused towards suppression of international terrorism. Therefore, the world gave global terrorist network a decisive response with global anti-terrorist coalition. Considering that America was directly attacked on 9/11, it became the epicentre of that combat with the biggest engagement of its military resources since the Second World War. America also included its NATO partners, and the biggest ally in its military operations was the Great Britain.

           That was the first time in the history of this Alliance that the article 5 of the Contract was activated, that actually represents the basis for its legitimate actions for the purpose of defence, and with that NATO became the leading international organization that implements anti-terrorist measures. By doing so, all its activities were directed towards combating terrorism and the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction. In the shortest amount of time, the operative and institutional anti-terrorist frame was created, new international activities were initiated, and the old ones strengthened and expedited, in order to create unity in that combat.

           Because of the sudden escalation of modern day terrorism and global danger that comes with it, but, primarily, because of the fact that countries, especially less developed ones, aren’t capable of providing measures and mechanisms for its successful prevention, control, and suppression on their own, the role of the United Nations Organization became crucial. Unlike the one assigned to NATO, it has normative, monitoring and advisory character and consists of bringing various regulations on the international level. This most powerful organization has always, since its establishment, been making certain steps against terrorism, from the standpoint of international law. However, specific measures for suppressing global terrorism were taken only after the UN Resolutions (1368, 1373 and 1377), approved on General Assembly sessions shortly after the 9/11. These Resolutions had a great impact on creating a global anti-terrorist coalition lead by the US which asked UN to support their response to the 9/11, at least up to the point that was necessary for the member countries to take steps inside their own borders and according to their capacities, in order to stand up to fractions of Al-Qaeda’s network located on their territory.

           However, even with all of the measures that UN undertook which were surely very important, the need for a universal, internationally accepted definition of terrorism still exists, and it is rightfully expected from the most powerful international organization to make a concrete effort in defining it. I think that the main prerequisite for a definite clash with contemporary terrorism is the assimilation of generally accepted definition of terrorism on the General Assembly of UN, that would be validated by the Resolution, and which would be regarded as obligatory by all member countries. That, certainly, implies that all members of UN, primarily, major powers on which the financing and operating of this organization depends, to give up the double standards when it comes to their attitude towards terrorists and their organizations. If that is not accomplished, it would be possible and rightful to question the need for further existence of this organization, which is obviously being instrumentalized by those major powers. The true combat against modern terrorism is conditional upon the same attitude towards everyone, that is, everyone’s terrorism, in which every form of support must be eliminated, especially its encouragement and financing, for everyone’s and anyone’s goals and interests, whether they are public or secret and indirect.

           On today’s global scene, where the modern terrorism has no boundaries and is more and more looking like an organized criminal grouping with elements of participation of certain governments, and with fewer isolated incidents, it is quite clear that countries, especially less developed ones, aren’t capable of conducting successful anti-terrorist activities on their own. If we take into consideration that the biggest modern day challenges, risks and threats, such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, aren’t researched enough, we come to the conclusion that no country is capable of dealing with them on its own, nor taking total care of its national security. That is why, the fight against these threats demands coordinated cooperation of all international subjects, as well as all subjects of international law and security. Aside from membership and acting through international institutions, primarily the UN, it is necessary that countries cooperate with each other (bilaterally and/or multilaterally) in security, law enforcement and intelligence affairs when it comes to terrorism. That kind of successful cooperation is possible to achieve and maintain only through a high level of trust between all the branching institutions. In addition to that, the global anti-terrorist actions would have to be adjusted to both the minimums of common interests of the centres of world power affected by this phenomenon (US, EU, and Russia), and rational predictions about the future development of terrorist threat. If that had been done in the beginning of the “preventive” war, it wouldn’t have come to new terrorist threats that are posed by new extremist formation in the Middle East – the Islamic State.

           Despite the aforementioned, the reform of international institutions lead by the UN is also necessary, in order to secure an adequate response to global terrorism. Naturally, it is a lengthy and expensive process that, among other things, requires unreserved political will and approval of all the world leaders, for whom it is about time to address the creation of new and more humane system of global governance. A reaffirmation of peaceful and righteous solution principle is also necessary (ethnical, religious and international), along with elimination of a practice that included imposing pre-set solutions that was done thus far.