Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Winning the War on Terrorism"

I will show that terrorism is substantially dependent on the voluntary support terrorist groups receive. Therefore, the current efforts to fight terrorism mainly by military means is not only futile, but counterproductive by playing into the opponent's hand: helping terrorists to create the support that is vital for them.

US President Barack Obama is obviously aware of this vicious circle, in which violence not only creates more violence, but also delivers the pretext to justify this escalation. He clearly realizes, that Osama bin Laden is not the problem, but just a complication.

The actual problem is a growing willingness to engage in terrorist attacks - even by apparently well integrated and secular educated immigrant's children of the second generation.

Accordingly, to reduce the threat of terrorism we have to reduce the willingness to enlist in terrorism. The first step to achieve this is to talk to terrorists. For example, President Obama recently shared his desire to talk to moderate Taliban in Afghanistan.

By offering to negotiate with terrorists we start fighting terrorism where it stems from: from an environment where violence seems to be the only option to achieve one's aims; which is even more so the case with Obama's new initiative.

Obama has not only tried to renew the relationship between Islam and the West after 9/11, but also offers a promising approach to bring the Palestinian conflict to a peaceful solution. In this way, Obama has responded in two connected ways to the threat of an Islamic motivated terrorism. Firstly, he responded very carefully to the global Muslim community's deeply felt discrimination. Secondly, he is taking the wind out of al Qaeda's sails, because the Palestinian conflict is a prime example used by Islamist terrorists to justify their deeds.

Dr. Andreas Michael Bock is a Lecturer in Political Theory and Philosphy, in International Relations Theory as well as in Conflict and Peace Studies at the Geschwister-Scholl-Institute of Political Science at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, the Munich University of the Federal Armed Forces and at the University of Augsburg.

Download PDF: Bock_Winning the War on Terrorism.pdf

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

June 24, 2009

Volker Petzsch-Kunze

I like this comment! What's this?

The domestication of terrorism as a phenomenon of utter helplessness, felt by vast portions of the growing underprivileged youth troughout the world is what this new approach should aim for. Bringing the Palestine conflict back into a moderated discourse might help to ease tension. The palesinian struggle for self-assertion is shared by proxy in many societies right on the doorstep of the European Union and even in its backyard.

June 24, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

"The first step to achieve this is to talk to terrorists. For example, President Obama recently shared his desire to talk to moderate Taliban in Afghanistan."

I don't think of 'moderate Taliban in Afghanistan' as terrorists; certainly not terrorists as we normally define the term, which is on a global scale.

Taliban is a fundamentalist Islamic political movement in Afghanistan and the Taliban leadership were allied with the Al-Qaeda terrorists; but that did not make them terrorists. Not even when they fight NATO forces in Afghanistan are they terrorist. Only when they blow up civilians do they act as terrorists, but even then terrorism is more of a tactic than a strategy, and not one universally used by all Talibanis at that.

A useful simile may be drawn between local Pashtuns (called Taliban) in Afghanistan and the local clans in the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. The latter were nominally allied with Al Qaeda in Iraq, until they changed their minds about their lands and people being used as battlefields and victims, respectively. I suspect 'moderate Taliban' (aka Pashtuns) may bear certain similarities to the Iraqi leaders, and discussions may serve mutual interests in some cases....

June 24, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

I like this comment! What's this?

The author acts as if these Obama initiatives are new ideas. They are not. They have all been tried before, with very little effect. What will be different this time?

The only difference I can see is, Obama's personal story and racial/cultural background. That counts for something. It may cause people who would otherwise ignore or discount his statements, to pay attention to them. But the message will still matter. They may listen, but will they hear? If they hear, will they act?

Consider the Palestinian conflict. As far as I can see, the major concession Obama has demanded (so far) from the Palestinian side is to acknowledge that the holocaust happened, and was as horrible as it was. Doing so will cost them nothing, in terms of real politik. So, will they do it? I propose that this be the initial test of whether Obama's background will make any real difference when it comes to the much more problematic domain of current, real geo-politics.

I am almost certain Obama's background will not make any measurable difference, even on no-cost symbolic issues.

Also, we need to keep in mind that Obama sees himself as primarily a domestic President. His major initiative this year will be health care, not foreign policy. Indeed, he shows every sign (other than in his rhetoric) of being a (mostly) status quo President when it comes to foreign policy.

June 29, 2009

Andreas Michael Bock, Geschwister-Scholl-Institute of Political Science at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, (4)

I like this comment! What's this?

Firstly: Of course, it is a question of dispute, if the Talibans qualify as terrorists. But more important to my account is, that the Talibans are a social movement and as such are no less dependent on voluntary support than al Qaeda.

It is this support President Obama's initiative addresses: he is addressing the threat that organizations and movements like al Qaeda or the Talibans pose.

Secondly: I am not in a position to evaluate the presidency of Barack Obama. But his declared willingness to take a chance on a new beginning with Islam and the Muslims points in the opposite direction: that he is not primarily a domestic President.

In contrast to former US-administrations Obama did not only elevate the Palestinians to equal status, he also considered Palestine as a present reality.

By this, Obama’s initiative offers a real chance to end the current war on terrorism – by transforming it into a political concept that aims to reduce the willingness to support or engage in terrorist acts.

July 14, 2009

irfan elahi, vancouver, canada, student

I like this comment! What's this?

this meance of terrorism is very deep rooted based on international geo-politics, interests and ideology.blame goes to from rich saudi and gulf oli sheikhs to the west. they:re the passengers of the same boat which takes them in the world of wealth and corruption.
west and saudis used each other for same benefits which is wealth. they created monsters, assets who they utilized them for their shadowy networks.only people can fight terrorism not the governments because, they are the causaulties not the elite. they need to fight this system which is based on corruption and controlled environment.

July 28, 2009

amarjyoti acharya

I like this comment! What's this?

Between fighting terrorism and fighting terrorists, there is a difference. As long as one is cognizant of that difference, one can hope to fight terrorism. Fighting terrorists - well, it is another matter altogether. Andreas makes sense. Fighting terrorism would mean fighting an environment where 'violence seems to be the only way of achieving one's aims'. That of course is where the entire trick lies. The moment we can enable the possibility of Utopia even as a dream - we can be said to have fought terrorism resolutely.
Of course, soft terrorism or crime (mafiosi, etc.) represent equal and sometimes worse damage for while terror acts are isolated - they come across as accidents. Crime comes across as socialization and yes... soft or hard varieties - terrorism needs to be combated resolutely, while combating terrorists. That distinction understood and the meanings understood - we have just won the world for peace and justice.

October 8, 2009

Jai Singh, NA, (7)

I like this comment! What's this?

Terrorism is simply a method to the degree that a definitional dialectic on the term is extant (it is not). President Obama's speech, though filled with the expected platitudes and niceties that one would expect, fails to exhibit a critical understanding of the differences between violent non-state action based on socioeconomic considerations verses those based on religion. Groups utilizing terrorism as a means cannot and should not be homogenized when it comes to their stated basis for engagement in conflict. Neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda are fighting because of a perceived lack of socioeconomic considerations (although such is part of the propaganda temporally correlated with the addition of Adam Gadhan to the fold) but instead are fighting because of the centuries old mandate of defensive jihad for the former and the subjugation of dar-al-harb to dar-al-Islam for the latter. There will be little advancement on the fight against ''terrorism' (again - a method) until the leadership in the secular West applies some degree of analytical honesty in its view of the Islamic basis for the sanctioned use of violence. There appears to be a dearth of appreciation for historical truths and facts. In a historical time frame, 1683 was not so long ago as to be lost to antiquity.

June 23, 2009 | 7 comments | Print this Article | E-Mail Your Research

Think Tank Analysis: Winning the War on Terrorism