Yesterday David Miliband, The British Foreign Secretary questioned the use of the term "war on terror" to describe the many attacks since 911
War on Terrorism a Mistake Says British Minister
"Historians will judge whether it has done more harm than good," he said, adding that, in his opinion, the strategy had been dangerously counterproductive, helping otherwise disparate groups find common cause against the West.
Further
"The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common," he said, in a clear reference to the rhetoric of the Bush era.
As an example, recent I/P diaries here have discussed whether Hamas is a local group mobilized mostly for its war on Israel or if Hamas is a part of the international radical islamist movement. The way we define the war (or lack of war) leads to policy conclusions on what to do about it. If we view these attacks as connected to various nationalist disputes and largely criminal, then our normal law enfocement and justice systems should be able to handle the problem. If you think it's a war tied to a trans-national ideology, then a different approach is required, relying on the military and extra-judicial processes.
A good example of the other view: that it is a war on terror, and more specifically Islamic Terror is expressed by Melanie Phillips in today, UK Spectator, who argues aginst Milliband's positions.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/...
There is indeed a unified transnational enemy and it is the Islamic global jihad. Yes, the specific causes which carry the jihad are many and various around the globe. But they are unified by one common goal which transcends all divisions, including those between Sunni and Shia, and that is to conquer all unbelievers and spread Islamic theocracy around the world. The roots of this modern phenomenon lie in post-colonial thinkers such as Syed Qutb, Abu ala Maududi and Ali Shariati, and before them in Ibn Tamiyya, and before him in a line of ideologues and clerics going back to early Islamic history and the Koran. Is goal is global domination and it is unalterable.
Much of the criticism for Iraq War II centered on assertions that Sadaam Hussein was not part of the radical islamist movement, but rather a particularly awful nationalist thug. Thus the Iraq war was/is a diversion from the war in Afghanistan, which is against the Taliban--the local radical islamic group that gave a home to Al Queda.
So which is it: criminal activity, GWOT, or War with the Radical Islamists.? If you've read my previous posts, you know I lien toward war with radical islam, but hey, I'm willing to listen. It's a debate that's not going away.