oti0sus

With the American election less than a month away, I thought I would make some comments about the campaign. I hope I can offer something fresh and different. It may not be so easy as the election is heatedly discussed by many much better informed than I am. I'll start this series with some observations on terror, a key issue in the campaign.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

That's the definition of terrorism according to Dictionary.com. I doubt many would take issue with this, but there is an important aspect that is not covered.

I think the main goal of Al Qaeda terror is not to intimidate or coerce. Rather it is to drive a wedge between Islam and the West. So, an act of Al Qaeda terror is staged for two separate audiences, but with only one purpose. By appealing to their lowest instincts, the two communities are herded together and simultaneously driven apart from each other. In this case, Al Qaeda furthers its cause first by drawing confrontation with the West to the brink, and secondly, by forcing more moderate Muslims into the extremist camp. This double action is a key feature of the terror strategy which is missing from the traditional definition.

Judged from Dictionary.com's definition, the attacks of September 11 were a failure. Americans were stunned, confused and frightened by the attacks but I don't think anyone would argue that the United States were intimidated or coerced by the violence. Using my expanded definition though, the attacks were far more successful.

We can see in Iraq today how this is so. After the attacks of September 11, Bush seized on the plan to invade Iraq. I don't know whether bin Laden expected this. Perhaps he would have settled for an American invasion of Afghanistan where they could re-fight their glorious battles against the Soviets. But with Bush in Iraq, bin Laden had a dupe acting out his role with a gusto that he would never have dared imagine. The Bush administration almost boasts now of how they have turned Iraq into the central front in the war against terror. Raining terror upon a land, even a foreign one, is not a mark of success. The fact that Islamist suicide bombers have made Iraq even more dangerous does not mitigate Bush's failure.

In that famous speech, Bush declared, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." It's nothing new to say that Bush ignores reality. The reality here is that most people of the world, like it or not, are happy where they are in the middle and have no desire to be forced to take sides in a conflict that has nothing to do with them.

And to Iraqis, those families of children killed by American missiles, or families of the hooded men tortured at Abu Ghraib, does Bush offer them the same choice?

Does anyone doubt which side they would take?