September 11, Crisis Resolution

Articles

Interviews

Letters

Responses to September 11th

Speeches

Site Update March 20, 2003
By Pamela Harris

The Fog Of War

Dennis J. D. Sandole
ICAR Professor

President George W. Bush's strident march to war against
Iraq would not be taking place if not for the terrorist attacks
of 11 September 2001. Those attacks and their aftermath have
unleashed a variety of emotional reactions among Americans and
others: shock, outrage, frustration, even guilt and shame, plus
a lingering sense of helplessness, anxiety, depression and fear.
These reactions have all been compounded by an earlier anthrax
scare and a month of sniper attacks in the Washington, DC, area,
plus a recent increase in the color-coded terrorist alert system
-- with Americans stocking up on duct tape, plastic wrapping,
bottled water, and the like.

What all these emotions have in common, besides many
translating into a thirst for revenge, is the need to reduce the
intensity of the experience and to avoid other painful
situations. Hence, the tendency for Americans and others to
expect their political leaders to do something to reduce and
avoid the threat of terrorist attack.

The War on Terror is probably the first truly postmodern
war, where "the Enemy" is not a traditional nation-state with a
fixed territory and population, governed by an identifiable
political leader. Instead, the people associated with the 19
young men who attacked us on 11 September are members of
decentralized terrorist cells in many countries throughout the
world.

Apart from the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan to topple the
Taliban regime and destroy al Qaeda training infrastructure, the
War on Terror has been very diffuse, irregular, and without
closure. Despite the recent capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid
Sheik Mohammed in Pakistan, security forces still have not
apprehended the "other guys" who did this to us. We do not even
know if Osama bin Laden is dead or alive. For many Americans and
others, therefore, the level of emotional upset and need for
revenge have not been resolved by the War on Terror itself.

Enter a truly evil, ruthless despot: Saddam Hussein, a man
who rules rough over his own people; has killed scores of Iraqi
Kurds; invaded Kuwait in 1990 and subsequently, after the Persian
Gulf War of 1991, attempted to assassinate President Bush's
father, former President Bush. Saddam Hussein is a political
leader truly "made to order" for emotionally upset Americans who
need a more traditional enemy to target with aircraft, missiles,
tanks, artillery, infantry, and the like: all the weapons that
are difficult to employ in many of the 60 countries where al
Qaeda is rumored to be active.

Enter the "Fog of War." President Bush, Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell have successfully
convinced a majority of Americans that a war on Iraq is a
sensible component of the War on Terror, even though Saddam
Hussein apparently had nothing to do with the attacks of 11
September or has any operational relationship with al Qaeda. He
was not even supportive diplomatically of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan, which U.S. "allies" Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were.

Indeed, Pakistan -- a nuclear armed state -- is the location
of the religious schools (madrassa) where the Taliban were
created with U.S. support during the Soviet invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Saudi Arabia is the
major exporter worldwide of Wahabism: a more traditional (and
for some, "more pure") form of Islam. Wahabism informed the
worldviews and identities of the 19 young men (15 of whom were
Saudis) who perpetrated the acts of terrorism of 11 September
2001. It is also the basis for the beliefs and values of Osama
bin Laden, himself a very wealthy Saudi. Ironically, the earlier
spread of Wahabism was supported by the U.S. as a bulwark against
the Shiite fundamentalism of post-Shah Iran.

The question arises: How has President Bush been able to
succeed in convincing a majority of Americans and others (e.g.,
Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom) that a war
against Iraq is a relevant component of the War on Terror?

Saddam Hussein is certainly evil, as he was when the U.S.
supported him in his war against Iran during the 1980s. There is
no doubt that he has chemical and biological weapons of mass
destruction. But unlike Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea and
the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, he does
not have nuclear weapons.

Still, Saddam Hussein is a truly negative character and,
unlike the North Koreans whom President Bush has also included in
the "Axis of Evil" designation, he is both an Arab and a Muslim
(although not a fundamentalist). The 19 young men who
perpetrated the 11 September attacks were also Arab and Muslim.
In other words, there may be an element of stereotyping, "racial
profiling" and even racism implied in the U.S. decision to go to
war against Iraq, as Iraqis "look like" the terrorists of 11
September 2001.

The Bush Administration has successfully argued that some of
Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons may fall into
the hands of al Qaeda, which may then use them against American
targets. Curiously, the same case has not been made about
Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration has also
convinced a majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein and al
Qaeda are operationally connected: something that the French,
Germans, and Russians, among others, continue to dispute.

Hence, against the background of the need for many Americans
to achieve emotional closure on the 11 September attacks, Saddam
Hussein seems to neatly fill the bill!

President Bush has recently gone further by arguing that his
plans to conduct a major war against Iraq would lead to the
democratization of Iraq and the Middle East, with implications
for eventual peaceful relations between Israelis and
Palestinians. We should not forget that Iraq possesses no
nuclear weapons, has not threatened the U.S., and indeed has
allowed UN inspectors to look for weapons of mass destruction on
its territory. This stands in stark contrast to President Bush's
intention to use diplomatic means to deal with North Korea: a
state with which the U.S. is still officially at war, which does
have nuclear weapons, is starting up its nuclear weapons program,
and has expelled its UN inspectors.

How might President Bush's policies be perceived by the
Russians, French, Germans, Arabs, and Muslims worldwide? He may
indeed appear to be arrogantly and unilaterally leading the
world's sole superpower to war against a developing country for
access to its vast oil reserves. Given that Iraq's citizens are
predominantly Arab and Muslim, how can that perception possibly
lead to peace in the Middle East? Indeed, through the "law of
unintended consequences," a U.S. war on Iraq -- much like Israeli
Prime Minister Sharon's war against Palestinians -- will probably
have the opposite effect: a worsening of the Middle East
conflict and of Western-Arab/Muslim relations in general.

U.S. Generals Wesley Clark and Anthony Zinni (and earlier
Secretary of State Powell) have argued that a war against Iraq is
likely to "suck the oxygen" out of the War on Terror.
Post-Taliban Afghanistan is a sobering example: parts of the
country outside of Kabul are already falling back into the hands
of the warlords and elements of the Taliban. Afghan President
Hamid Karzai ended his recent visit to Washington with a plea to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "Don't forget us if Iraq
happens."

Given that Pentagon war plans call for dispatching some 3000
precision-guided missiles and bombs to Iraqi targets, including
in Baghdad, during the first 48 hours of the war, why are many
Americans accepting what promises to be a very destructive war
against civilians?

Perhaps President Bush is responding to the need for
emotional closure on a national trauma, continuing felt
helplessness and anxiety about the future. He is doing something
to "those people" who "look like" the terrorists. This includes
deploying thousands of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf for the
war that now seems inevitable.

A U.S. war against Iraq, involving the mobilization of
thousands of reservists and national guardsmen and women from
communities all across the country, is an excellent way to keep
Americans who might otherwise be overwhelmed by fear and anxiety,
focused on the same goals. War at this time may be the
postmodern glue that holds Americans together, reinforced by the
oldest maxim in the practice of politics: "When the natives are
restless [because of economic and other problems], find an enemy
and [threaten to] go to war!"

It is difficult for many Americans, emotionally and
politically, to be critical of President Bush's decision to go to
war against Iraq because that decision involves the deployment of
American troops. To criticize the decision is to imply a lack of
support for men and women who might be in harm's way, calling
into question one's loyalty and patriotism: the ultimate trap of
the "Fog of War."

A war against Iraq might well prove to be self-defeating.
If Saddam Hussein succeeds in drawing the American and British
forces into a "scorched earth," street-to-street, house-to-house
campaign in Baghdad with many casualties, Americans might wonder
how this all happened. There could be severe political and other
consequences for those held responsible.

A war is also likely to be self-fulfilling. Once the 3000
precision-guided missiles and bombs start to assail, destroy, and
traumatize the people of Iraq, we should not be too surprised if
Arabs, Muslims, and others in the developing world experience a
sense of ethnic, religious, class and other kinship with the
Iraqi victims of superpower aggression. This has real potential
to establish the very operational ties between Iraq and al Qaeda
that the U.S. claims already exist. It could also aggravate
further the growing bipolarity between Western (Judaic-Christian)
and Islamic Civilizations.

Indeed, the messianic zeal of the Bush Administration in
preparing to go to war against Iraq certainly borders on a
crusade. It appears not to matter to President Bush what the UN
inspectors do or do not find, or if there is UN Security Council
authorization or not. This stridency has been matched by what
many assume is Osama bin Laden's recent "civilizational rallying"
of Muslims worldwide to help defend their Iraqi brothers against
the "crusader enemy."

Adding further to the complexity of the postmodern world,
where pre-emptive war is the strategy of choice for the world's
sole superpower and therefore a "legitimate model," imagine that
one or both of the remaining members of the "Axis of Evil,"
especially the nuclear-armed North Koreans, decided that they
were next on the U.S. "hit list." What then?

Despite his best intentions to the contrary, President Bush
may have become one of the world's most dangerous men.