Considering Realistic Alternatives to the War on Terror
Introduction
Since shortly after September 11, 2001, when the state of a “war on terror” was announced by US President Bush, and as of July 2005, active wars have been initiated and fought in both Afghanistan in Iraq, many billions have been spent on a military buildup, over 1,500 military personnel have died, thousands more troops have been wounded physically and mentally, and many thousands of civilians have died as "collateral damage". Hundreds of “enemy combatants” have been detained, without representation or charges, in various locations around the world by the US and its allies. From these detentions numerous allegations of prisoner abuse have emerged, some corroborated by widely publicized photographs. Civil liberties in United States and elsewhere have been encroached upon by governments in the effort to respond to the threat of terrorism. The exorbitant, resource-depleting cost, and the thousands of deaths among both civilian and military that have resulted from this leadership paradigm, seemingly without consideration of realistic non-military alternatives by US national leadership, suggest the need for a critical analysis of this newly fundamental guiding American leadership paradigm, the “War on Terror.”
Critical analysis of the war on terror paradigm
What is the “War on Terror?”
Announced days after the 9-11 attacks in New York City and Washington DC, in which over 3000 people were killed, the "War on Terror" also known as the "Global War on Terror" (or GWOT) has become the overarching leadership paradigm of the United States of America, the modern nation with the most significant quantity of military and economic influence in the world. This influence has allowed the concept of a “global war on terror” to be largely accepted as fact worldwide. As the old joke goes, “Where does a 500 pound gorilla sit? Anywhere he wants.”
The War on Terror can be defined as:
“… a global effort by the governments of several countries (primarily the United States and its principal allies) to neutralize international groups it deems as "terrorist" (primarily radical Islamist terrorist groups, including al-Qaida) and insure "rogue nations" no longer support terrorist activities. It has been adopted as a consequence of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States (Wikipedia.org 2005).
US Vice President Richard Cheney (2003) indicated the Bush Administration’s belief that the appropriate response to the threat of terror is a military response saying about the threat of terrorism that “such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed, and that's the business at hand.” It is clear from the Bush Administration’s words and deeds that alternatives to the primarily militarily-focused war on terror paradigm are not seriously considered as realistic and that the anticipated outcome from this leadership is a “win-lose” result in which the “West” wins, and “terrorists” lose. This dualistic “us against them” viewpoint toward the complex world of international relations of American leadership oversimplifies that complexity that characterizes the many relationships among nations and cultures. It also contrasts with the “win-win” solutions sought through principles of nonviolence.
Whether or not this “war on terror” paradigm is even a "war" as traditionally defined, can it be won in any way? Can any real “victory” be declared, can any actual progress be achieved, or is a “war on terror” more accurately an ongoing process in the same vein as crime fighting? US President Bush questioned this possibility himself in August of 2004 in a nationally televised interview. He stated that the War on Terror was not the kind of war a nation can “win” in the traditional sense because of the elusive nature of the problem saying, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way” (MSNBC.com 2004). John Kerry, the Democratic presidential rival in the 2004 Presidential campaign, criticized him for making this statement, and President Bush retracted it the following day. This possibility that a war on terror might not actually be able to achieve the ends that leaders ascribe to it did occur to American leadership, but because of domestic political pressures, the pretense of the usefulness of a war on terror was maintained.
In the way that crime will likely never be eradicated from the earth, so too is it likely that there will always be some threat of terrorist activity, no matter what course of action nations and groups take. So is reduction, or containment, of terrorism a more realistic goal to seek? American national leadership has declared such thoughts of “containment” to be useless (Cheney 2003). It appears that what may be a realistic aspect of dealing with the threat of terrorism altogether, that containment is the best possible outcome of any efforts to reduce terrorism, is de-emphasized by American leadership solely focused on the prosecution of a war paradigm that it is not sure it can truly prevail in. There appears to be a lack of certainty to American leadership’s understanding of what the concept they have created and promoted may be actually able to accomplish.
With this vagueness from leadership, what is the American public’s understanding of what the “War on Terror” is and what are its expectations for it? If there is no expectation for improvement in the threat posed by terrorism, and no clear and consistent expectation for a foreseeable and desirable end to conflict, why have leaders promoted the idea of a “war on terror” such as we are experiencing? What positive purpose does the War on Terror serve?
Since the declaration of this "war," many thousands of civilian Afghans, Iraqis, and others, have died as "collateral damage" to a military campaign that is being fought against the general concept of international terrorism. More people may have died as a result of the American response to terrorism than from the terrorism itself. The watchdog web site IraqBodyCount.net documents from 22,787 to 25,814 civilian deaths in Iraq as of July 7, 2005. Other research has estimated civilian casualties in Iraq to be closer to 100,000 (Roberts, Lafta, Garfield, Khudhairi and Burnham 2004). Acts of terrorism have also increased significantly since the declaration of the War on Terror. Terrorism figures from the US State Department, July 2005, list approximately 3200 terrorist attacks worldwide, with 28,000 directly affected. (Reid 2005). These numbers are increased from previously released numbers due to changes in how terrorist attacks are defined by the State Department. Even using the previous definition for “international terrorist” acts, which only counted attacks between nationalities, the number of attacks was up from the previous year. Using the previous definition, there were 175 terrorist attacks worldwide in 2003, and 655 in the year 2004 (Glasser 2005). Regardless of the definition used by the US State Department, the number of terrorist incidents is up since the initiation of the war on terror paradigm.
Along with being a deadly and ineffective response to the problem of international terrorism, the global war on terror is very expensive proposition for the US economy. In 2004, US defense spending reached $466 billion and accounted for 49% of all military spending worldwide (GlobalSecurity.org 2005). This heavy defense spending is leading to budget cuts for domestic needs within the United States including cuts in the Education Department, Medicare, nutrition programs, early education programs, homeownership programs, job training, medical research and science programs, which are all likely to be cut in the 2006 fiscal year federal budget (Allen and Baker 2005). The heavy US defense spending that the war on terror in is generating is causing a loss of financial resources for other significant societal needs.
The paradigm of a war on terror is also providing justification for encroachments on civil liberties and an erosion of adherence to internationally recognized standards of treatment for combatants. The war on terror is used as justification for the detention of hundreds of “enemy combatants” in Guantánamo Bay Cuba and other secret locations (Hurst 2005), without representation or charges, by the United States. This, along with the "rendition" of terrorist suspects to third nations with known records of torture (Pelly 2005) undermines the moral foundation the United States may have previously had on issues of human rights. Encroachments on civil liberties in United States, as exemplified by the quick passage of the USA PATRIOT Act following 9-11 and its 2003 successor, Patriot Act II, and the 2005 re-authorization of the acts, should give pause to psychologists, scientists and citizens who value constitutional rights. Under these acts, criminal searches can be conducted by authorities using a lower standard for obtaining warrants and even eliminate the need for warrants in certain cases (Wolpia 2003). Libraries must turn over records of materials used by patrons upon request by authorities, while librarians are prohibited from notifying those affected (Orecklin 2003).
Without a fundamental war paradigm such as the War on Terror, the aggressive use of military power and the intrusions on constitutional rights we are seeing would be more difficult to justify. These disturbing developments following the proclamation of the existence of a "war on terror" suggest the need for research relating to such concerns potentially related to this leadership paradigm and to the sincere consideration of realistic alternatives which would help to reduce the threat level of terrorism, without leading to thousands of collateral deaths, without wasting of billions of dollars in economic resources, and without diminishing constitutional rights within nations.
Suggestions for alternative paradigms
Characteristics that alternatives to the War on Terror should possess
In contrast to the largely negative characteristics of the current War on Terror, alternatives must display contrasting characteristics. Instead of contributing to cyclical violence by emphasizing violence, leaders must acknowledge the effects of emphasizing violence and instead exercise restraint. Instead ofunilaterally pursuing win-lose strategies executed from an exclusively American perspective, cooperative win-win outcomes which account for and value the needs of other nations and cultures should be sought. Instead of accepting heightened perceptions of difference among nations and cultures efforts at outreach should be emphasized to decrease perceptions of threat among groups. These changes in perspective will require significant education and persistence if they are to ever be seriously considered by leaders and citizens. Scholars can lead the way in suggesting the usefulness of such alternative perspectives.
Successful alternatives to the War on Terror must contain three basic elements:
- restraint of use of force, to reduce the negative side effects and energizing of cyclical violence as occurs from the use of military tactics
- cooperation among nations and cultures to reduce the "us against them" sense that is projected from the War on Terror concept which contributes to perceptions of conflict among groups, and
- outreach among nations and cultures to help reduce the perceptions of "difference" between cultures that may support the use of force.
Restraint, cooperation, and outreach are guiding concepts that support one another. In order to cooperate, every nation must restrain its own ability to unilaterally wage war. To improve international cooperation in nations and cultures must increase communication and positive outreach and interaction on economic, governmental, cultural and social levels. Any one principle alone is insufficient. Together these principles reduce provocative actions on the part of governments and potentially positive actions are emphasized instead. These principles can be applied to all groups and cultures concerned, whether state actors, small groups, or individuals.
Positive outreach among nations and cultures reduces the perception of groups as being "different", reduces the negative bias that can result, and helps increase the value of finding nonviolent solutions to conflict. If we are going to again be able to work toward world progress on multiple levels we must de-emphasize the Pre-emptive doctrine, take part in cooperative and multilateral efforts to confront terrorist activities primarily through international police work, acknowledge our own contributions to the security threat we now see, and commit to international outreach efforts. Restraint, cooperation, and outreach are the fundamental principles that must replace the "War on Terror if we are to again progress as a species.
It may be that governmental leaders are not ready to consider such alternatives, because they are historically focused on military responses. It may be necessary for alternative ideas to start with research and discussion among scholars, become an acceptable area of discourse among citizens, and eventually be able to influence the decision making of leaders. This is a course of "decisive action" that is worthy of consideration.
Emphasize “win-win” outcomes
One of the basic principles of nonviolence is the idea of "winning your opponent over." Rather than seeking to "crush" your opponent in a conflict, the practitioner of nonviolence would find a way to achieve what it is he or she needs and also to help the opponent to achieve his or her needs as well. By doing this, a conflict is turned from a negative into a positive by helping both sides work toward individual goals. Additionally, resentment toward the "winner" from the "loser" is reduced because these superior and inferior roles are not created in the resolution of the conflict. The resentment that can later result in renewed conflict is reduced or eliminated lowering the likelihood of ongoing conflict by the parties.
The current war on terror paradigm, with its "win-lose" expectations is, as shown previously, leading to increased terrorism, and is not leading the world toward the goal of improved security as stated by American leadership promoting the paradigm. Successful alternatives to the war on terror must seek win-win outcomes instead. In this way, a successful alternative paradigm will not contribute to cyclical violence as the current War on Terror does, and so will be more likely to reduce the perception of conflict among nations, cultures and groups which will make it easier to marginalize extremists on all sides, and will facilitate improved interaction among the mainstream. This is a realistic path that must be considered.
Seek to minimize contributing to cyclical violence by de-emphasizing
the use of force, resorting to violence truly as a last resort
To resort to force when other options have not been fully explored is morally questionable. Successful alternatives to the War on Terror must emphasize the restraint of military power, and the restraint of killing force. The War on Terror, by its very nature, emphasizes the use of violence by emphasizing the expectation of ongoing war as a way to deal with the threat of terror. The US has followed through with that expectation in the execution of wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq as of mid-2005. This approach has led to the deaths of thousands of American military personnel, and of tens of thousands of civilians in both Muslim nations. The negative after-effects of such widespread killing are not hard to imagine. Lowered positive perceptions of America and of Americans, among citizens of Muslim nations, is one already manifest outcome. This cannot be a hopeful development.
The concept of restraint also includes restraint in arms production and sales. The production or arms of all kinds is a multi billion dollar world industry and is counterproductive to the needs of humanity. This problem must be acknowledged and checked. This will require persistence in efforts to educate citizens about the systemic nature of the War on Terror. Scholarly research must increasingly examine these characteristics of war in general and the War on Terror specifically.
By emphasizing restraint, and putting other efforts, such as the use of international police work, well before the use of force, alternatives to the war on terror can minimize contributions to cyclical violence by focusing efforts to reduce terrorism on specific individuals and groups rather than using military force on large masses of the world's population as we have seen in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Those who survive the military action generated by the War on Terror concept may then begin to feel anger, then feel justified in supporting terrorism as a response. This analysis does much to explain the emergence of the insurgency in Iraq as well as the ongoing security concerns seen in Afghanistan. Successful alternatives to the War on Terror will minimize use of force and so reduce this potential effect.
Positive terminology and examples should be emphasized over destructive ones
A fundamental way to avoid contributing to worldwide cyclical violence would be to consider the semantic effect that a term like a "war on terror" has in contributing to conflict, and so cease using such terms. Successful alternatives the War on Terror will also avoid approaches which are destructive to human beings, their property, and the environment in which they live. International opinion polls show extremely low levels of approval for America, American Government, and even the American people A poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project (2005) asserted that "the United States remains broadly disliked in most countries surveyed, and the opinion of the American people is not as positive as it once was. In the nation of Jordan, in 2004 5% of respondents had favorable view of America. In 2005 that number has increased to 21%. In the nation of Pakistan, in 2004, 21% of respondents had favorable view of America. In 2005, that number increased slightly to 23%. A sizable majority with negative views of America remains in Middle Eastern nations. This trend cannot be helpful to the effort to reduce international attention, or the support of terrorist activities.
In mid-2005, news stories began to appear describing the emergence of modified terms for the War on Terror coming from highly placed sources in American government. The acronym "G-SAVE" stands for the "global struggle against violent extremism" (Sacramento Bee 2005) and this semantic shift appears to indicate an awareness of the disconnection between the stated aims of the War on Terror, ending terrorism, and the current results, an increase in terrorism globally. By downgrading the intensity of the terms used to describe the effort, government leaders may be seeking to downgrade expectations for results from the primarily military US response to the ongoing problem of terrorism.
This shift in terms changes the semantics related to the concept of a war on terror without changing the underlying action that it continues to represent, the use of state sanctioned violence to respond to the problem of terrorism. If changing the terms describing US action is to have any real impact, then it must be accompanied by a corresponding real change in the approach used to deal with the problem. By transforming the semantic terms for a “war on terror” into a more positive form, such as an “international security initiative,” and supporting such a change in terminology with realistic and positive changes in US policy and conduct, such as are suggested here, the negative effects of an aggressive concept like "war", could be ameliorated. To change the name only, without also changing the policy itself, may not affect outcomes because the realities experienced by affected persons may not change and so their predictable responses to the violence may not change. Changes in terminology alone are insufficient. Real change in the underlying policy is the true change that is necessary to begin to bring about positive results, such as a decrease in terrorism statistics and improvements in perceptions among nations and cultures.
Cooperative international relations emphasized over unilateral
In contrast to the largely unilateral approach the United States has taken to international relations recently, such as establishing and implementing the Bush Preemptive Doctrine as policy the US withdrawal from multilateral initiatives such as the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, and the refusal of the US Government to accept the jurisdiction of the International Crimes Court, successful alternatives to the war on terror must seek to work cooperatively with the other nations of the world.
Taking unilateral action because of unchecked power, as the US frequently does, increases the risk of alienating other nations and groups. For example, both Russia and China have indicated their discomfort with the "unipolar" international arrangement implied by contemporary American foreign policy, and have taken steps to work together to establish a counterbalancing geopolitical presence in the world (Isachenkov 2005). The possibility that American unilateralism may bring about a "Cold War II,” underscores the need for successful alternatives to the war on terror that seek an increase in security through internationally cooperative means.
Allow re-allocation of financial resources toward constructive efforts such as education, healthcare, renewable energy research, and positive international interaction
Successful alternatives to the war on terror will seek to restore moderation to levels of Defense spending. The billions of dollars that are being spent on defense in the United States, and around the world, as discussed previously, drain economic resources from other important needs. Billions of human beings around the world survive on less than two dollars a day. This kind of poverty can only contribute two the recruitment of suicide bombers and others who would feel justification in undertaking acts of terrorism. If the prevailing paradigm for international relations, the War on Terror, continues, and continues to stress the use of violence without acknowledging the contribution to the problem of terrorism that poverty poses, a potential cause of the problem will continue to go unaddressed.
The many needs of American and world society are clear. From domestic needs for education and healthcare funding in the US, to the need for increase in foreign aid to poorer nations, to the support of nongovernmental organizations dealing with the world's economic and social problems, to the support of international exchange programs, the economic resources that are being used to support an ongoing war on terror need to be redirected toward constructive purposes.
Account for other points of view, re-humanize those from other nations / cultures
An aspect of human cognition that supports violent conflict is the psychological ability to "dehumanize" others who we perceive to be the enemy. To do this an individual must devalue others individually, and collectively in contrast to the individuals own sense of self, and sense of the identity of the group to which he or she belongs. This is a manifestation of "group bias." Mummendey and Wenzel (1999) described this effect as occurring "if the outgroup’s difference is judged to be non-normative and inferior, devaluation, discrimination, and hostility are likely responses toward the outgroup." An understanding of these effects in human cognition must be accounted for in successful alternatives to the war on terror as a means of reducing perceptions of interpersonal, intercultural and international conflict.
Positive alternatives should seek to reduce the threat of terror without curtailing the rights of citizens in free societies.
Leadership in the "War on Terror" frequently characterizes the motivation for terrorism as an "attack upon our freedoms." Likewise, the freedoms we do value should not be undermined or eliminated by our own leadership in its haste to provide "security." Internal government organizations, such as the new US Department of Homeland Security, should not lead us along the path to the acceptance of living in a police or military state. The new stringent security measures being undertaken in airports, the multicolored "threat level" indicators that have been devised, and the suggestion of racial profiling as necessary are causes for concern within the United States.
Successful alternatives the war on terror will seek to address the security problem that terrorism poses without curtailing constitutional rights at home, and without denying the human rights of others elsewhere. Successful alternatives to the war on terror will seek to broadly recognize the many possible causes for terrorism, and the historical background in which these causes have arisen. Successful alternatives the war on terror will not only address the symptoms of terrorism, the violent acts, but will also address the underlying grievances, within historical contexts, that may contribute to these violent acts. Successful alternatives the war on terror will set a positive example for the respect of constitutional and human rights worldwide and help us move toward positive outcomes.
General principles and an example of positive
and constructive alternatives to the war on terror
The following example of alternative principles that could potentially support the replacement of the war on terror as a guiding paradigm for our times are a sign of hope in a time when world leadership is focused on efforts that are likely to lead to despair. This example of an alternative to the War on Terror displays the characteristics of successful alternatives as previously discussed, in one form or another.
As previously stated, the principles of restraint, cooperation, and outreach (RCO) are necessary fundamental principles in devising successful alternatives to the war on terror. A further breakdown of these principles, providing specific examples to support each of them is useful.
- Main purposes:
- Reduce the negative side-effect of use of force.
- The US must set positive example for others to follow.
- Rationale:
- Negative examples of conduct or policy by US give moral justification among some to target US and allies. Emphasis on force contributes to cyclical violence.
- Some specific actions to take:
- De-emphasize the use of military power
- Act to support rule of international and national law rather than rule of power
- Pre-emption only allowed when there is “no moment for deliberation.”
- Understand that state-sanctioned violence (the actions of national military forces) have similar effects to non-state sanctioned violence (the actions of terrorists). Both destroy, kill, and terrorize those who survive. Both are problems that need to be minimized.
- Intelligence agencies for gathering info, not subversion
Consistently support the transition of dictatorships to democracies - Support the strengthening of existing democracies
- Accept international standards on conduct of war
- Do not use torture to gain intelligence
- Allow detainees right to counsel, and to know charges
- Use no “3rd countries” for rendition and possible torture
- Limit arms manufacture and sale, and end it where possible
- End development of "tactical nuclear weapons" which may be more likely to be used if they are percieved as 'survieable" by the nation employing them
- End use of cluster bombs with depleted uranium, and “napalm-like” weapons
Cooperation:
- Main purposes: Improve multilateral action among nations and cultures
- Rationale: Cooperative efforts reduce the need for unilateral military action and reduce the negative side-effects of using military power against whole populations. Preventing terrorist acts without provoking further hatred should be the emphasis.
- Some specific actions to take:
- place a renewed emphasis upon the power of international and national police work to prevent and diffuse terrorist acts
- re-recognize the criminal nature of terrorism, and that ongoing war cannot effectively end the problem, as bombing crime-ridden ghettoes would not end all crime. Terrorism must be dealt with as crime, which realistically can only be contained and minimized at best, rather than responding with war, which is increasing the occurrence of terrorist acts.
- Police work targets specific extremist individuals and groups unlike warfare which leaves much “collateral damage” and worsens conditions.
- Encourage the sharing of information between national security agencies
- Fully rejoin international efforts to reduce global warming
- Fully support non-proliferation treaties to reduce the threat of nuclear war
- Sign the treaty to ban landmines and join other non-proliferation agreements
- Engage in cooperation on impeding funding for terror groups
- accept the jurisdiction of the International Crimes Court, and Iraqi national courts to rejoin the group of nations which respects and honors international law
Hammond (2005 p. 111) commented on the benefits of restraint and cooperation writing:
Even though great powers can use international law as an instrument of manipulation, it also provides a standard against which they can be held to account. Cooperation and restraint provide a more certain basis from which to work politically, within the United States and with other countries, to secure a more just order of respect between nations and peoples.
Outreach:
- Main purpose: Creating increased positive social and cultural connections among all nations and cultures
- Rationale: Positive outreach can reduce the negative effects of group bias and increase likelihood of individuals and groups seeking nonviolent means to solve conflicts.
- Some specific actions to take:
- support of extensive exchange programs between persons in the West and persons in other regions, especially the Middle East
- support of exchange among religious groups and leaders to foster greater understanding among cultures rather than accept the idea of “clashing civilizations”
- the support of athletic programs to foster positive relationships among peoples and cultures
- emphasis on political, cultural and economic change by example, rather than by force
- the pursuit of true “fair trade” to improve economic conditions widely and reduce poverty which may contribute to terrorism
- Spend the billions currently going toward war on positive efforts such as these.
Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach diminish the effects of the psychology of humans to react negatively to force by calling for restrained of use of force. They promote positive relations among nations and cultures by emphasizing cooperation and positive outreach. These principles seek to support preventing violent conflict rather than accepting it as normal, as a way of counteracting forces of cyclical violence. It is a better defense, because it is a much better offense than is emphasizing military power before other options are considered. Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach are “decisive action” that can have positive effects rather than continuing with the actions we are currently seeing which are having negative effects on security and international relations.
These principles are realistic and constructive. Citizens must begin considering these even if leaders refuse to. Scholars and citizens may have to lead the way toward change in how the US interacts with the world. This change begins with changing the semantic terms we use to describe our efforts. Rather than a “war on terror,” which implies conflict, we need “positive outreach” or “productive engagement,” terms which imply positive and constructive expectations rather than negative ones. From there, specific changes in national beliefs and expectations must lead to real changes in policies on all levels of government. National leadership could make this happen quickly, if they supported this set of principles, but since they appear to disregard all alternatives, it will take large scale, long-term efforts by scholars and citizens to change the view of leaders, or to change the leaders themselves.
Conclusion
Changing the discussion
The establishment of a permanent state of war upon the earth is the direct result of the promotion of the “war on terror” paradigm by American governmental leaders and the acceptance of the concept by followers worldwide. The outcomes of accepting this leadership concept as reality are overwhelmingly negative. Upon critical examination, the "war on terror" concept can be shown to be a harmful, destructive, and possibly an "antisocial" form of leadership becuase it fails to work toward the "common good" for all of the people in the world that it affects.
Such an analysis and conclusion calls upon historians, psychologists, other scientists and citizens to examine not only the manifestations of ongoing structural and direct violence as generated by an acceptance of the concept of a war on terror, but an examination of the fundamental concept itself. This emphasis on considering alternatives must result in publication and presentation not only to other scholars but to the general public as well. The discussion must change from "how do we live with the War on Terror" to "how do we get beyond it?" Engler (2003) suggested early on the need for alternatives writing that:
Engler suggests that the War on Terror represents a systemic problem which is a barrier to "human development" and that the outcomes from the War on Terror are overwhelmingly negative requiring a call for change not from leadership, the source of the War on Terror paradigm, but from citizens themselves. Scholars and citizens must take the lead where our leaders fail us. Scholars and citizens must challenge the prevailing paradigm of our time rather than accept it unquestioningly.
A paradigm such as the War on Terror has many faults and it should not be immune to scholarly examination. In the way that Psychology contributed to the end of segregation in the American South by highlighting the psychological reality of racism, so too can it help to change the discussion from one which accepts the War on Terror as fact, to one which examines its characteristics and if warranted, suggests preferable alternatives. This is a process that must occur for humanity to be able to progress as a species to a condition in which war is not considered an acceptable means of resolving conflict. Will it require an “Armageddon” for humanity to consider this, or are we capable of learning this before we reach such a stage?
Whether from the perspective of Peace Psychology, which seeks to synthesize the disciplines of the studies of Psychology and Nonviolence with the areas of Behavioral Science, Political Science, and International Relations, to the psychology of Organizational Leadership, or Semantics, the dominating paradigm of our times, the concept of an ongoing war on terror, must be crtically examined. Is the War on Terror beneficial to mankind, or is it harmful? If research begins to provide support for the view that it is an example of harmful leadership, then scholarly efforts can provide much needed support to citizens willing to challenge mainstream thought. By getting to the root of the problem, the acceptance of ongoing direct and structural violence as manifest by the acceptance of the concept of an ongoing war on terror by followers, scholars of all stripes can do humanity and the Earth a great service. By critically examining the causes and effects of the paradigm of the War on Terror, scholars and citizens can help the US and the world to see other options that are available and be able to help lead the world toward a positive future.
In short, the War on Terror is simply a bad idea. It is a symptom of poor leadership. It needs to be abandoned as a guiding concept and replaced with a more constructive and positive set of expectations for the relationship of the US to the rest of the world. Rather than basing relationships upon expectations of war and conflict, the expectation must become one that emphasizes restraint, cooperation, and outreach. When sufficient numbers of Americans and other around the world share this understanding and reject the expectation of ongoing generational war, humanity will begin upon the road toward a better future beyond a war on terror paradigm. This is why the discussion must change from one which accepts the War on Terror as an unavoidable reality, to one which questions it, and seeks to replace it with a positive paradigm, vision, and mission for the world.
Ideas like "world peace" or the vision of a "Beloved Community" of Martin Luther King Jr. seem to some like utopian ideals that will never come about in the real world. The "realists" among us continue to remind us that these utopian visions are "unrealistic" and that war is something that "always has, and always will" occur. But to accept a concept like the War on Terror as an unassailable characteristic of our times is to instead accept a dystopia as a permanent reality. By accepting a dystopic concept such as an ongoing and endless "war on terror," we abandon all hope for a better future for our generation and for our descendents. If followers can readily accept an extreme dystopia as reality, they should also be able to embrace realistic aspects of a positive vision for the future as well. The effort must be made to understand the psychology, history, and other realms of scholarly inquiry surrounding these concerns.
Before the War on Terror, world leaders held out the possibility of peace as a distant carrot-on-a-stick for citizens. The concept of an ongoing and generational war on terror does not even do this. When seen in this light, the War on Terror, the prevailing public leadership paradigm of our era, the concept that future historians will undoubtedly use to label our times in history books, is not worthy of the support and acceptance of humanity. Humanity deserves a more positive and constructive vision for the future of the earth and its inhabitants, and by striving toward alternatives to replace the War on Terror paradigm with a positive vision for humanity, psychologists, other scientists, historians and citizens can do the species a great service. This is research worth pursuing because a better world, one beyond war, is worth working for.
Appreciation to writer Mark Engler for his suggestion to incorporate the concept of cooperation into the set of basic principles for successful alternatives to the War on Terror. His insightful writings can be found on line at www.democracyuprising.org.
References / Additional Resources
Abshire, D. M. (2001). A call for transformational leadership: The United States and Japan. Vital Speeches of the Day. .67, (14) pp. 432-435.
Allen, M., Baker, P. (2005). $2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Cuts Many Programs: Domestic Spending Falls; Defense, Security Rise. Retrieved 7-8-05 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3319-2005Feb6.html.
American Enterprise Institute (2004). Operation Iraqi Freedom could be a first step toward a larger goal: true globalization. Retrieved 7-12-05 from http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/interviews/TAELiveInterview.htm.
Arena K. (2004). Experts: War on terrorism could spawn new enemies. Splinter groups may rise from crackdown on al Qaeda, they warn. Retrieved 7-12-05 from
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/15/alqaeda.splinter/.
Asner, E. Hall, B. (2004). Needed: A new and bolder strategy for the War on Terror. Humanist. 65 (4) pp. 5-6.
Barnett, T.P.M., Gaffney Jr., H. H. (2004). Global Transaction Strategy. Retrieved 7-12-05 from http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/gts.htm.
Brown, C. (2004), Reflections on the "War on Terror" Two Years On. International Politics 41, (1) pp. 51-64.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K. Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 97, (2), pp.117-134.
Brown, M. G. (1998). Improving your organization's vision. Journal for Quality & Participation. 21 (5) pp.18-21.
Campbell, H. (2003). Beyond Militarism and Terrorism in the Biotech Century:
Toward a Culture of Peace and Transformation. Radical History Review 85, 24-36.
Cheney, R. (2003). Overcoming the threat of terror: Peace and security. Vital Speeches of the Day. 69 (21).
Collyer, C., E., Zepp, I. (2003). Nonviolence: Origins and Outcomes. Writers Workshop. Calcutta, India.
Engler, M. (2003). Beyond the war on terror. Retrieved 7-30-05 from:
http:// www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/engler063003.html.
FDCH E-Media, (2005). Transcript: 2005 State of the Union Address. Retrieved 7-07-05 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_020205.html.
Glasser, S. B. (2005). U.S. figures show sharp global rise in terrorism: State Dept. will not put data in report. Retrieved 7-7-05 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html.
GlobalSecurity.org, (2005). Worldwide military expenditures. Retrieved 7-7-05 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm.
Gutting, G, (Ed.) (1980). Paradigms & Revolutions. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre
Dame, Indiana, USA.
Hammond, J. l. (2005) The Bush doctrine, preventive war, and international law. The Philosophical Forum. 36 (1) pp. 97-111.
Hilton, I. (2005). Five principles for a safer future. International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security. Retrieved 7-18-05 from http://english.safe-democracy.org/contribute/five-principles-for-a-safer-future.html.
Hurst, L. (2005). Island Paradise or Torture Chamber? CIA Under Fire for Secret Detentions:
Indian Ocean Atoll Alleged Abuse Site. Retrieved 7-8-05 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050702-island-torture.htm.
IraqBodyCount.net. (2005). Iraq body count. Retrieved 7-7-05 from http://www.iraqbodycount.net/.
Isachenkov, V. (2005). China, Russia warn of world domination. Associated Press. Retrieved 7-15-05 from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-01-russia-china_x.htm.
Lafer, G. (2004), Neoliberalism by other means: The “War on Terror” at home and abroad. New Political Science. 26 (3).
Lorenzi, P. (2004). Managing for the Common Good: Prosocial Leadership. Organizational Dynamics. 33, (3) pp. 282-291.
Mccgwire, M.(2002). Shifting the paradigm. International Affairs. 78, 1 1-28.
MSNBC.com (2004). Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world'. Retrieved 7-16-05 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/.
Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance and intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3 (2).
National Security Strategy of the United States of America, The. (2002). Retrieved 7-30-05 from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html.
Orecklin, M. (2003). Checking what you check out. Time. 161, (19) pg. 34.
Pelly, S. (2005). CIA flying suspects to torture? Retrieved 7-8-05 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml.
Pew Global Attitudes Project. (2005). U.S. Image Up Slightly, But Still Negative. Retrieved 7-18-05 from: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247.
Reid, T. (2005). The 28,000 victims of terrorism. Retrieved 7-7-05 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1684077,00.html.
Rice, C. (2004). War on Terror. Vital Speeches of the Day. 70 (22) pp. 674-677.
Risvi, F. (2003). Democracy and education after September 11. Globalization, Societies and Education. 1 (1).
Roberts, L., Lafta, R., Garfield, R., Khudhairi, J., Burnham, G. (2004). Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Cluster sample survey. The Lancet. 364 (9448) p. 1857-1864.
Sacramento Bee (2005). Editorial: if not war, what? Retrieved 8-12-05 from
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/13316332p-14158442c.html
Sidman, M. (2003). Terrorism as behavior. Behavior and Social Issues. 12, 83-89.
Soros, G. (2003). The bubble of American supremacy. The Atlantic Monthly. 292 (5) 63-66. (Also available at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5273.htm)
Summy, R. (2002). A nonviolent response to September 11. Social Alternatives. 21 (2), p. 10 – 20.
Wikipedia.org. (2005). Neoliberalism. Retrieved 7-22-05 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism.
Wikipedia.org. (2005). War on terrorism. Retrieved 7-7-05 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terrorism.
Wolpia, W. (2003). Patriot Act, the sequel. The American City & County. 118, (6) pg. 4.
Zakaria, F. (2002). How to Fight The Fanatics. Newsweek 140 (24) p. 44. Also available at: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/120902.html.
