Tweet
Drop "War On Terror": Rand
By IOL Staff
CAIRO — The US should stop using the "war on terror" label and shift its strategy against terror groups from the current heavy dependence on military might to greater use of policing and intelligence work, a leading US think-tank linked to the Pentagon has concluded.
"The United States should abandon the use of the phrase 'war on terrorism,'" the RAND Corporation said in a new study released on Tuesday, July 29.
In its study, How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida, RAND suggests that Washington should replace the so-called "war on terror" with "counter-terrorism".
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors," added the think-tank, first formed to offer research and analysis to the US armed forces.
"It's more than a mere matter of semantics.
"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use."
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush unleashed what he describes as a global war against terrorism.
This included two preemptive wars against Afghanistan and then Iraq, without a UN mandate.
The White House website has a page on the US-led "global war on terror."
The Rand study contends that nearly every US ally, including Britain, and Australia, has stopped using the controversial label.
The British Foreign Office has told UK diplomats and spokespeople around the world to stop using the controversial phrase to "avoid reinforcing and giving succor to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive."
For most Muslims, the so-called war on terror seems like a global war on their faith rather than a handful of Muslims with an extremist ideology.
Critics said that the term was too "military" and did not address the root causes of extremism.
Others warned that militants use a sense of war and crisis and a "clash of civilizations" to recruit supporters.
Failed Strategy
RAND also concluded that the current American strategy that relies too much on military force against terrorist groups has failed.
"The US cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist.
"In most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups."
Researchers at the renowned think tank studied 648 terrorist groups which existed between 1968 and 2006 and found that only a small fraction of them were defeated militarily.
"Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined."
In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the study found that most of them end either because they joined the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrested or killed key members.
A survey by the US Foreign Policy Magazine has showed the majority of leading US experts and former officials believe Washington was losing its war on terror.
RAND is recommending a new strategy.
"Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against Al-Qaeda in most of the world," it says.
"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy."
By IOL Staff
CAIRO — The US should stop using the "war on terror" label and shift its strategy against terror groups from the current heavy dependence on military might to greater use of policing and intelligence work, a leading US think-tank linked to the Pentagon has concluded.
"The United States should abandon the use of the phrase 'war on terrorism,'" the RAND Corporation said in a new study released on Tuesday, July 29.
In its study, How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida, RAND suggests that Washington should replace the so-called "war on terror" with "counter-terrorism".
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors," added the think-tank, first formed to offer research and analysis to the US armed forces.
"It's more than a mere matter of semantics.
"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use."
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush unleashed what he describes as a global war against terrorism.
This included two preemptive wars against Afghanistan and then Iraq, without a UN mandate.
The White House website has a page on the US-led "global war on terror."
The Rand study contends that nearly every US ally, including Britain, and Australia, has stopped using the controversial label.
The British Foreign Office has told UK diplomats and spokespeople around the world to stop using the controversial phrase to "avoid reinforcing and giving succor to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive."
For most Muslims, the so-called war on terror seems like a global war on their faith rather than a handful of Muslims with an extremist ideology.
Critics said that the term was too "military" and did not address the root causes of extremism.
Others warned that militants use a sense of war and crisis and a "clash of civilizations" to recruit supporters.
Failed Strategy
RAND also concluded that the current American strategy that relies too much on military force against terrorist groups has failed.
"The US cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist.
"In most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups."
Researchers at the renowned think tank studied 648 terrorist groups which existed between 1968 and 2006 and found that only a small fraction of them were defeated militarily.
"Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined."
In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the study found that most of them end either because they joined the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrested or killed key members.
A survey by the US Foreign Policy Magazine has showed the majority of leading US experts and former officials believe Washington was losing its war on terror.
RAND is recommending a new strategy.
"Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against Al-Qaeda in most of the world," it says.
"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy."
Comment