Connect with us

Terrorism

The Biggest Short: The War on Terror

Luis Durani

Published

on

September 11th changed the trajectory of history. The attacks began what appears to be war campaign with no end in sight. While the initial operations against Afghanistan was justified and supported by the international community, the direction of the campaigns afterward was both financially imprudent and unproductive to an extent.

As the Afghan campaign began winding down with the defeat of the Taliban, it was abruptly interrupted with a new front, Iraq. With the US’ attention diverted towards Iraq, the Taliban were defeated but not eliminated. The invasion of Iraq was partly goaded on by Osama Bin Laden. His modus operandi was to engage the US and elicit a response in the form of a long-term campaign . His desire was to bankrupt the US through the War on Terror. With the September 11th attacks costing Al Qaeda approximately half a million dollars , their bet has perhaps resulted in the largest return ever . The current approach in executing the War on Terror is leading to large costs for the US. Al Qaeda’s desire to bankrupt the US has resulted in the biggest short of history.

What Happened

A short position is defined as the “sale of a borrowed security, commodity or currency with the expectation that the asset will fall in value ”. In other words, shorting is wagering that a firm or in this case a country will fall in value over time.

After 9/11, the American security paradigm transformed due to fears of another attack on the US. The Bush administration began implementing new measures to ensure security of the homeland. The drums of war also began to beat. But as the public and administration were caught up in the fog of war and revenge, the intent of the terrorist attacks were lost on many. Bin Laden was fully cognizant his ill-equipped team of terrorist could not stand a chance against the strongest military in history but his desire was that such a provocation would be the catalyst for his grand plan.

Shortly after the initiation of the Iraq War, Bin Laden released a tape outlining the group’s long term strategy, “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy .” Yet this proclamation was disregarded by many. In 2004, the national debt was at $7 trillion Dollars , today it stands at approximately $19 trillion Dollars and terrorism appears to becoming more widespread.

Although the Taliban were routed, they were not eliminated. The group found safe havens in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Instead of pursuing and eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s leadership, the United States decided to begin a new front against terrorism in Iraq. This is where the strategy began to go astray. Another conventional war added more to the national debt. These campaigns were not being paid for directly but being accrued to the debt.

Aside from the fact that the war in Iraq turned out to be ill-planned and launched under a false pretense, it was not a cheap affair. The Iraq War has cost the American taxpayers about $2 trillion Dollars but is estimated to rise to approximately $6 trillion Dollars in the next few decades . The Afghan War, which officially ended on December 31st, 2014 (but is still ragin on) has cost the American taxpayers about $1 trillion Dollars . The long term cost of that war will grow in the next few decades as well. Just the two campaigns alone can end up costing American taxpayers around $10 trillion Dollars, leave alone the additional covert wars, battles and drone strikes being carried out under the banner of the War on Terror . With the terrorist attacks of 9/11 costing half a million Dollars, the return on investment for Al Qaeda is about 20 million to 1 (without accounting for inflation). This simple analysis is not accounting for the cost and grief that is endured by the families and friends of those who died in the wars. That is a price that cannot be measured.

Was It Needed

The September 11th attacks brought a new enemy to the forefront, Muslim radicals. There is no doubt that pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the correct course. The front in Afghanistan should have been the first and perhaps last conventional engagement in the War on Terror. But the Bush administration pursued a policy of “Transformational Diplomacy “; promoting democratic reform through hard power. Not only did the Iraq War create a major financial burden, it bogged American troops, resources and attention from the actual war of eliminating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The invasion of Iraq created a power vacuum and opened the flood gates for foreign terrorists to enter the country. The extremists took root in a once secular nation, which began to fissure along sectarian lines. The combination of war, foreign extremists who fueled the embers of sectarian violence, and a newly disenfranchised segment of the population (Sunnis) spawned a new terror group; ISIS. Today, ISIS has eclipsed Al Qaeda in terms of threat as well as barbarity. The war in Iraq opened a Pandora’s Box of terrorism and allowed for all these radicals to emerge and establish a network in a place they were essentially nonexistent prior to the invasion. The Iraq War is one of the largest foreign policy mistakes ever in American history and a major factor behind the instabilities that are currently being witnessed across the region .

Aside from the initial conventional war in Afghanistan, all the other campaigns against terrorist targets should have focused more on smart power rather than purely hard power. The United States’ military is second to none but a hard power centric strategy was not ideal. A combination of both soft and hard power would have allowed the US to win hearts and minds as well as eliminate the root of terrorism. The War on Terror should have focused more on building intelligence networks and capabilities, limited engagements throughout the globe with Special Forces and/or drone strikes, as well as building better regional coalitions to defeat local menaces. This approach would have been a less costly affair than the current strategy that is employed where conventional war is used and supplemented by these other tactics. As demonstrated by the false premise behind the Iraq War, underestimation of ISIS’ threat and drone strike statistics , the US’ intelligence capabilities with regard to the War on Terror have not been optimal and in some cases have created more terrorism rather than eliminate it .

Conclusion

Now almost 15 years after 9/11, the world appears to be much more unstable and dangerous than on the onset of this campaign. Since then the US national debt has almost quadrupled with the debt to GDP ratio at 100% . Such levels are unsustainable to say the least. The War on Terror has caused the US to become financially insolvent, is this what Bin Laden’s grand strategy was? Is this why he prodded the US into war in Iraq, knowing two fronts will create a quagmire? The continuous enflaming of sectarian violence by Al Qaeda in Iraq appears to have spilled over into other countries of the region, which are engulfed in civil wars along sectarian lines now. Was it all worth it, can it have been done cheaper and better, no one will ever know; hindsight is 20/20.

Luis Durani is currently employed in the oil and gas industry. He previously worked in the nuclear energy industry. He has a M.A. in international affairs with a focus on Chinese foreign policy and the South China Sea, MBA, M.S. in nuclear engineering, B.S. in mechanical engineering and B.A. in political science. He is also author of "Afghanistan: It’s No Nebraska – How to do Deal with a Tribal State" and "China and the South China Sea: The Emergence of the Huaqing Doctrine." Follow him for other articles on Instagram: @Luis_Durani

Continue Reading
Comments

Terrorism

Where is Our Sovereignty?

Hareem Aqdas

Published

on

In the name of anti-terrorism, the Justice Department of U.S.A has urged its acquisition of all modes of powers since the birth of our country.  Following are some fundamental considerations.

Why, at all, do our civil rights have to be sacrificed in order to protect (so called) us from terrorists by this outside force, called as hegemony? Why even has U.S. taken the responsibility on interfering in Pakistan’s (and the worlds) internal matters as that of security? The argument is whether security is more crucial than our liberty. We are told that the Justice Department requires these powers in order to make us secure.  But the central question goes deeper – will the sacrifice of our liberty actually make us safer, for we accept their dominance and let them interfere in our matters, why?

Can we be made absolutely safe by U.S.’s interference in our security matters? No. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together realizes this. The War on Terrorism, occurring in Pakistan, will not be won, as this war is a political act, done by politicians for political reasons. We had a war on poverty, and lost. We had a war on drugs, and lost. These kinds of wars are not about resolving issues, they are about appearing to resolve issues.

The biggest blind liberty we openly give to The U.S. is the power to name anyone amongst us as a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism, without any proof or any judicial review of the claim; we trust American leaders to name someone a terrorist or a devotee of terrorism only for the reason of protecting from terrorists. They do this in secret, on the basis of whatever information or sources they characterize, and with no one ever able to review their decision.

Once they have determined that someone is a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism (remember no testimony required), they assert (or want) the right to detain indefinitely, and in clandestine.  That is, should they decide you are a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism; they get to secretly arrest you and hold you as long as they want without anyone knowing why or where.  No court is able to review this situation. Where is our sovereignty at this point?

The above, of course, has to do with the eavesdropping they want to do, or their ability to come into our homes without a warrant and copy our hard drive, and make it possible to copy all the keystrokes we make and harass us for whatever petty grievance they hold.

Now ask yourself, how does their interference in our matters of security make us safe from terrorists?  How does their power to name someone a terrorist or a supporter of terrorists, without judicial review, make us safer? Such a power only makes the judgments, of those who hold this power, safe from any abuse of that power. How the power to search and arrest without warrant make us safer? For it threatens not the terrorists, but our sovereignty.

Continue Reading

Terrorism

Nuclear Terrorism and Pakistan

Sonia Naz

Published

on

Nuclear terrorism is a potential threat to the world security. According to the EU representative terrorists can get access to nuclear and radioactive materials and they can use it to terrorize the world. Nuclear security expert Mathew Bunn argues that “An act of nuclear terrorism would likely put an end to the growth and spread of nuclear energy.”After 9/11 the world has observed that al-Qaida wanted to get nuclear weapons. In case terrorists acquire nuclear materials, they would use it for the production of a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is not like a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb spreads radiation over hundreds of square while; nuclear bomb could destroy only over a few square miles. A dirty bomb would not kill more people than an ordinary bomb. It will not create massive destruction, but it will cause the psychological terror which will lead to a panic situation which is more devastating. The world has not experienced of any act of nuclear terrorism, but terrorists expressed their desires to gain nuclear weapons. The IAEA has observed thousands of incidents of lost, left and unauthorized control of nuclear materials and such materials can go into the wrong hands.

After 9/11 terrorism generated negative perceptions about the nuclear security of Pakistan. Often western community pressurizes Pakistan that its nuclear weapons can go into the wrong hands due to the terrorism in it.  The fact is that Pakistan has faced many terrorist attacks, but not any attack towards its nuclear installation facility and radiation has been occurred. Mostly, nations obtain nuclear weapons for the international prestige, but Pakistan is one of those states which obtained nuclear capability to defend itself from India which has supremacy in conventional weapons. It played a leading role in the efforts of nuclear security since inception of its nuclear weapons. The result is that no single incident of theft and sabotage has been recorded in Pakistan.

Pakistan is a very responsible state and it has taken foolproof measures to defend the its nuclear installations and nuclear materials against any terrorist threats. Pakistan is not the member of the nonproliferation(NPT), Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Fissile material cut off treaty (FMCT) because India has not signed them. If Pakistan signs these treaties and India does not, it would raise asymmetry between both rival states of South Asia. Pakistan’s nuclear non-proliferation policy is based on principles as per the NPT norms, although ithas not signed it. Pakistan had also proposed to make South Asia a nuclear free zone in 1970 and 80s, but India did not accept that.

However, Pakistan is a strong supporter of non-proliferation, nuclear safety and security. In this context, it is the signatory of a number of regimes. Pakistan has established the its Nuclear Regulatory authority (PNRA) since22 January, 2001 under the obligations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The PNRA works under the IAEA advisory group on nuclear security and it is constantly improving and re-evaluating nuclear security architecture. Pakistan has ratified the 2005 amendment to the physical protection convention for the physical security of nuclear materials. When Obama announced nuclear security summit in 2009,Pakistan welcomed it. It has not only attended all nuclear security summits, but proved with its multiple nuclear security measures that it is a responsible nuclear state. Pakistan’s nuclear devices are kept unassembled with the Permissive Action Links (PALs) to prevent the unauthorized control and detonation of nuclear weapons. Different US policy makers and Obama have stated that “we have confidence that the Pakistani military is equipped to prevent extremists from getting an access to the nuclear materials.”

The dilemma, however is that some major powers favour India due to their geopolitical interests, despite India’s low score in nuclear security than Pakistan, as is evident from the reports prepared by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).The US has always favoured India for the membership of the NSG ignoring Pakistan request to become a member of the NSG, despite that it has taken more steps than India to ensure nuclear safety and security. It is following United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540(which is about the prevention of proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDS) and it is the first state which has submitted its report to the UN.

The report explains the measures taken by Pakistan to ensure radiological security and control of sensitive materials and WMDs transfer. Although Pakistan has suffered a lot due to terrorism, but its nuclear security measures are strong and appreciable. Recently, IAEA director visited Pakistan and appreciated its efforts in nuclear safety and security. In view of Pakistan’s successful war against terrorism, its success in eliminating terrorism in the country, and strong measures that it has taken to secure its nuclear installations and materials, their should be no doubt left about the safety Pakistan’s nuclear materials.

Continue Reading

Terrorism

U.S. lead the War on Terror and the Afghan Peace

Hareem Aqdas

Published

on

The region known today as Afghanistan has been subjugated to a series of warfare since the soviet occupation, till date, including the United States led NATO’s  is on in full swing. Afghanistan shares its borders with multiple countries, including Pakistan. The unrest in Afghanistan has been a major cause of instability of the region, including the spread of terrorism in the neighbouring countries, particularly along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The people of these areas known by the ethnicity of “Pashtuns” have been the major effected population of the unrest. From training those to become the U.S. backed “mujahideen” against the former USSR to unleashing the war on terror against them when they started to retaliate, Pashtuns are the sufferers.

The purpose of the mention of this scenario basically highlights the fact that the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan- the Pashtuns- have witnessed avery prolong war. This is a war that is neither the creation of their own, nor concerns them directly. It is a war with no clear end, with no particular benefit and it is only hurting the people. In fact, this long war has brought miseries to the people of Afghanistan and the region, that now must end.

The insurgencies in Afghanistan have resulted in the worsening of security situations in Pakistan, as is evident through the course of history. Finally, these insurgencies took the shape of   suicide bombings to widespread terror attacks that resulted in large scale life and property losses. In Pakistan the the spill over of terrorism from Afghanistan has been rooted out successfully with the success of the  “Zarb-e-Azb” and the ongoing operation “Rad-UL-Fassad. Although Pakistan has achieved this grand success after giving immense human sacrifices and suffering heavy economic losses.

The recently announced US Strategy / Policy on Afghanistan is also going to have a significant effect on the future regional developments. The salient points of president Trump’s Afghan Policy announced in 2017 can be summarized under six main headings:

1.Troop Levels: Pentagon authorized to ramp up troop numbers, who will be engaged in counterterrorism and training activities.

2.Military Autonomy: Military commander were delegated authority to act in real time and expand the US operations to target terrorists and criminal networks in Afghanistan.

3.Open-ended: No fixed timelines given for completion of the mission in Afghanistan.

4.Fighting Enemies: But Not Nation-building. Victory in Afghanistan will mean “attacking our enemies” and “obliterating” the Islamic State group. Vowed to crush al-Qaeda, prevent the Taliban from taking over the country, and stop terror attacks against Americans. US will continue to work with the Afghan government, “however, US commitment is not unlimited, and support is not a blank cheque” and the US would not engage in “nation-building”.

5.Pakistan Bashing: The US “can no longer be silent” about alleged terrorist safe havens in Pakistan. Trump  alleged that Pakistan often gives sanctuary to “agents of chaos, violence and terror”, the Taliban and other groups who pose a threat to the region and beyond.

6.Enhanced Indian Role: India to help more in Afghanistan, especially in the areas of economic assistance and development.

These stated interests call for a continued, ongoing unrest in the region. While the U.S. does not realize its own failings in Afghanistan, to cover up its own failures it asks Pakistan to “DO MORE”. In this context, it should be realized by the US and its other allies that Pakistan has already played a major part in the war on terror by defeating terrorism in its border regions with Afghanistan and elsewhere in the country by giving sacrifices much more than what the US and NATO forces have suffered from. Therefore it is the US who has to review its policies in Afghanistan and find a solution of the conflict there to bring peace to the region.

The United States Government should now realize that the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan have suffered too much from the war on terror and its backlash in the form of terrorist incidents. Especially Afghanistan people who have suffered since last 40 years want relief and peaceful conditions to resettle in their houses. The region also wants peace to focus on its economic development and welfare of its people.It is therefore better that the US initiates peace talks with the Taliban along with other Afghan groups to agree on a formula of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and holding free and fair elections in Afghan to form a government that is acceptable to all Afghans. This is the only way to end the war and bring peace in the region, so that the people of this region could also lead a normal life, like the people of other regions.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy