Make a tax-deductible contribution today and get exclusive Vonnegut gear!
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > September 12, 2006 > Web Only

Fighting the Larger War

The War On Terror is unique because its political, temporal and geographic borders are unknown and its enemy is fluidly ill-defined.

By Neve Gordon

The war on terrorism is historically distinctive because its political, temporal, and geographic borders are unbound and unknown, and it is fought against an enemy whose identity is ill-defined and therefore fluid.

While the fighting in Lebanon was still raging, many analysts claimed that Hezbollah’s modern weaponry and use of civilian spaces for military purposes distinguished the war from any other.

“Never before in history has a terrorist organization had such state-of-the-art military equipment, ” an Israeli general was quoted as saying in the New York Times. And yet, “Hezbollah has no armor or easily visible storehouses or logistic lines,” the Times continued, “and its members live among the civilian population of southern Lebanon, storing their weaponry in civilian buildings.”

Article after article mentioned the homes used as repositories for missiles, how the missiles were launched from village centers, and the way Hezbollah guerrillas, after firing the missiles, immediately blended back into the civilian population.

What struck me about these descriptions was that there was really nothing new about them; in fact, most guerilla warfare has been carried out in a similar manner. Even the pre-state Jewish paramilitary groups that attempted to drive the Brits out of Mandatory Palestine operated in comparable ways.

In other words, what the newspapers described as a new phenomenon was actually old, and what in reality was truly new was totally elided. The Lebanon war was, in effect, a war within a war, and the other war—the war within which it took place and which continues to wreak havoc—is unique.

Senior military planners at the Pentagon readily accepted the war-within-a-war thesis. According to the New York Times, they cast the conflict “as a localized example of America’s broader campaign against global terrorism,” but noted that “any faltering by Israel could harm the American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

But what, one might ask, is so unique about the war on terrorism?

In May 2004, Paul Hoffman, the Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International, prepared a paper for UNESCO’s World Forum on Human Rights, in which he eloquently explains this new war’s distinctive characteristics. Shortly before the conference, Hoffman was informed that he would not be delivering the keynote address as had originally been planned, and that his remarks would not be distributed or published because they displeased the United States delegation.

It is unclear which part of Hoffman’s academic paper the Bush administration considered so threatening, but one passage did stand out as quite frightening. In it, Hoffman underscores that “the war on terrorism exists in a parallel legal universe in which compliance with legal norms is a matter of executive grace. … The concept of ‘terrorism’ put forward is any act perceived as a threat by those waging the war against it. The battlefield is the entire planet, regardless of borders and sovereignty. The war on terrorism might continue in perpetuity, and it is unclear who is authorized to declare it over. Human rights protections,” he concludes, “simply do not exist when they conflict with the imperatives of the war on terrorism.”

Although Hoffman goes on to discuss the “human rights free zones” engendered by this war, places like Abu Ghraib, these features are by no means unique. Rather, the war on terrorism is historically distinctive, as Hoffman himself suggests, because its political, temporal, and geographic borders are unbound and unknown, and it is fought against an enemy whose identity is ill-defined and therefore fluid. This is not a minor issue, and it should be remembered when analyzing the different wars being waged these days, not least the one that just took place in Lebanon.

While Israel is certainly responsible for crimes perpetrated in Lebanon, the anti-war movement should really direct most of its energies towards replacing the leadership of the two countries that started the global war on terrorism—the United States and Britain—and concentrate less on the countries carrying out the proxy wars.

After all, it was not due to Israel’s warmongering, Hezbollah’s violent provocations or even al-Qaeda’s horrific attacks that the human species sharing this planet have passed a threshold where there is no horizon beyond war. It was President Bush and his friend on 10 Downing Street who have produced this apocalyptic reality and it is against them that our rage must be channeled. We must challenge and deride them through our letters and articles, drawings and paintings. We must voice our dissent at protests and strikes. We must do all this and more until they, as well as their friends and supporters, are forced out of office.

Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University, Israel, and is the editor of From the Margins of Globalization: Critical Perspectives on Human Rights.

More information about Neve Gordon

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    I guess that we should just let Osama Bin Ladin send planes into our Trade Center to Kill our people without a response.  There is a war going on between Islam and the rest of the free world.  We can either fight back or allow them to ruin our society.  We need to force the Mosques to denounce terrorists and turn-in any potential suspects.  We are fighting agianst people that strap bombs to themselves in order to kill a handful of people.  There is no negotiating with these people.  Don’t you remember what 9/11 did to our economy?  With a few more attacks like that and our country will be in shambles and our lives will never be the same.  I didn’t agree with the war on Iraq at first but now I see how important it is for us to win, then get Iran and the rest of the middle east to fall in line.  The article was right about one thing; this war is not going away anytime soon, even if we ignore it.

    Posted by dduck on Sep 13, 2006 at 4:49 PM

    dduck, the place where the response to the 9/11 attacks had begun was Afghanistan, but that effort was undermined when the front was opened in Iraq. Now, 5 years later, NATO is trying to finish what was left undone, and having no easy time of it. Because of the errors, falsehoods, scandals and incompetencies associated with Iraq, the electorates in countries that might have had a share in trouncing al-Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan back in 2001 now raise hell when their politicians want to send troops there. The entire mission became muddled and its accomplishment delayed God-knows how long, because of what began in March 2003.

    Pres. Bush’s recent speech focused on Iraq a great deal since he sees it as part and parcel of the war on terror, and he may have been able to persuade you since he was able to deliver the speech semi-eloquently without faltering the script (decent teleprompter use on his part, nothing more). But in my opinion, dividing the forces that might have been used to finish the job in Afghanistan was naively optimistic, tactically foolish, and, as many predicted then and what is coming to pass now, has actually increased the constituency al-Qaeda and similar jihadists will be able to draw upon for years to come. An undistracted effort and decisive victory in Afghanistan would have led to very different outcomes.

    The milk is already spilt in Iraq, and there’s no turning back the clock to regain pre-invasion conditions. But that does not change the effect of beginning a second war before the first one was finished. I ask you to consider these thoughts as you evaluate the president and the wars America has undertaken during his terms.

    I only pray that the new Iraqi government doesn’t become as brutal as Saddam Hussein’s regime to quell the violence there. It may. Wouldn’t that be a fine capstone to the whole adventure, trashing the country to unseat a vicious dictator, only to have the new “friendly” government become just as beastly.

    Posted by Kuya on Sep 14, 2006 at 2:27 AM

    There certainly have been tactical errors in the war ,as there is with all wars throughout history.  Iraq is, and has always been the key to a free middle east.  Saddam had the most power of all of our enemies.  Once we prove that we can knock him out of power is sends a clear message to any dictator that wants to harbor terrorists.  Terrorists without the funding from the corrupt governments of the middle east are reduced to a mere pest, but with millions of dollars and weapons technology (Which Saddam had) they become much more. 
    These are people that only respond to force; their culture is to deceive and they have been at war with eachother for hundreds of years.  Now they want to export that to the US and we need to send the clear message for them.  If they support groups that attack the US then they will be taken out of Power.  The leader of Iran is next; he had more to do with 9/11 than Saddam but it was the strategy of the Adminstration to go after Iraq first and hope that the people of Iran would rise up and want to have a free society like the one we are trying to install in Iraq.  Unfortunatley we are fighting a very determined group of religeous radicals that believe that it’s holy to kill people that don’t believe in Ala.
    I don’t believe that we can “win,” but hopefully we can contain them and reduce the attacks on our soil by putting them on the defensive.  Agree or not, that is the strategy and it’s worked since 9/11.

    Posted by dduck on Sep 14, 2006 at 8:45 AM

    first of all, it’s spelled “Allah.” secondly, was i the only person who saw the “president” admit on national television that there was NO connection between Iraq and 9/11? and these religious radicals in the middle east are just as deranged in their faith as those in here in America who rationalize the discrimination and marginalization of a quarter of our population by quoting Bible verses.

    their “war” on terror might be well-intentioned, but this administration is going about it the wrong way, which began in 2003 and diverting its attention from Afghanistan. fighting it by impinging on the basic rights of people, regardless of religion or citizenship, does not make us any friends. the u.s. government is using ignorance as a weapon and being as “non-transparent” as bush accuses north korea and kim jung il of being. labeling, name-calling and ill-informed military force and the other divisive methods employed by this bush-man and his gaggle of “yes-men” are the surest way to the longest road to non-war.

    Posted by everyman on Sep 14, 2006 at 9:23 PM

    Well, I guess endless war is the only solution to very ignorant people who scream “9/11” whenever challenged.

    Though, they know as little about the actual attacks as they do about the middle east.

    You can fool most of the people most of the time, and that is their strategy.

    9/11 Press For Truth

    John Doraemi Publishes Crimes of the State.

    Posted by johndoraemi on Sep 17, 2006 at 2:46 PM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Also by Neve Gordon

Your financial support of In These Times is critical, because as a non-profit, we rely on donors like you who know that In These Times will never cede the debate to the right and its corporate allies.

Donate now and get a Kurt Vonnegut mug or t-shirt!

Popular Discussions