| Click here to send the text of this page to a friend. | Click here to return to the War on Terrorism index/archive. |
Limits
Although every nation in the world, except Iraq, has signed on for
America's war on terrorism. But many of these nations have already found ways to
deal with terrorism. The most common solution has been to make informal and
unofficial truces with the terrorist groups. In Europe, this has been common
over the last few decades. Normally, Americans hear nothing about these
arrangements, until a captured terrorist is not prosecuted, or released early
from prison. Italy got caught doing this, as did Greece. But France also let it
be known, discreetly, that terrorist groups could operate in France as long as
they didn't do anything in France. Such arrangements are common is Moslem
nations. Where these deals don't usually apply is where the terrorists are
local, not international. But even here, there are arrangements. The 25 year
bombing and shooting campaign by the IRA in Britain was constrained by an
unofficial policy of assassinating IRA men when the organization went over the
line. The rules developed over the years. When the Earl of Montbatten was
killed, the SAS was allowed to kill some IRA men who were not in prison or
otherwise officially under investigation. The deaths of these men could be
attributed to internal disputes or pro-British terrorists. Over the years the
list of no-no's came to include; no royals, no foreign adventures (there were
IRA attacks in Germany and Gibraltar), no animals (some horses were killed
during an attack on the Household Cavalry, the British have a thing about
harming animals), the use of certain weapons like .50 caliber sniper rifles and
a few other no one but the IRA and SAS are sure about. Of course, no one can
prove this policy exists, but those who follow IRA activities, and the IRA
themselves, have no doubts. Upsetting these arrangements is a major thing
for the nations who have been free of terrorist activity for many years. The
stable democracies of Western Europe can handle a crack down on terrorists, and
terrorist supporters, living in their countries. Not so for Moslem nations like
those in the Middle East and South Asia (Pakistan, Bangladesh.) Saudi Arabia,
Yemen and Pakistan are particularly vulnerable. In these countries, Islamic
radicals are a major factor in local politics. A campaign to round up terrorists
and their supporters could lead to major unrest, perhaps even civil war. A
radical Islamic government in Saudi Arabia would probably still want to sell its
oil, but more of that money would go to supporting Islamic radical movements and
terrorism. Even now, many wealthy Saudis contribute to Bin Laden and other
Islamic radical groups. Many do it because they believe in the cause, others do
it to buy some good will in case the radicals take over. Same situation in the
other Persian Gulf Arab nations, although none of them have to deal with the
same intensity of feelings in Saudi Arabia. That nation is the home of the most
sacred sites in Islam, and the locals feel a more intense dedication to Islamic
radicalism. But there is some real enthusiasm among most nations to
finally get together and crack down on terrorism. The problem here is that, for
many countries, their local terrorists are seen by some other nations as freedom
fighters. Russia considers (with some justification) their Chechen rebels as
terrorists. They Chechens have committed some terrorist acts in Russia and they
are connected with the Bin Laden organization. Chechen's have been training in
Bin Laden's Afghanistan camps. China considers is Islamic Uigher separatists to
be terrorists and it has claimed to have broken up one Islamic radical group
(the East Turkestan Party of God in Xinjiang). Buddhist Tibetian separatists are
also classified as terrorists. Many nations condemn Russia and China for their
crackdowns on local terrorists, and there will have to be a change in attitude
to obtain any cooperation from those two nations. Each nation containing
terrorists will require the attention of more diplomats than soldiers. This is
basically a diplomatic war, backed up by military forces. Yes, we can send in
the B-52s (from Diego Garcia) to carpet bomb the camps in Afghanistan. We can
invade Iraq and replace Saddam with someone else (who may be worse), but in the
meantime the Iraqi terrorism support disappears. We can bomb the Hizbollah camps
in Lebanon, although many of those are surrounded by civilians or dispersed into
caves and bunkers. But the terrorists have to be arrested, and the people best
able to do this are local police. This is a war where allies are not just
useful, but absolutely necessary. So for the second time in 12 years, Colin
Powell gets to lead a major war effort, this time as the Secretary of State.
|
