American-sized terrorists

COLUMN

print this

By Pentti Sadeniemi
     
      In his victory speech after the recent elections, President George W. Bush said: "With good allies at our side we will fight this war on terror with every resource of our national power so our children can live in freedom and peace."
      It was a very appropriate sentence coming from this head of state, who not only made the war on terror the most important content of the exercise of his office - and the main theme of his recent election campaign - but who has repeatedly taken on the title of "wartime president".
      At the same time the sentence is high-grade balderdash. The war against terrorism does not require "every resource" of the only superpower - not even close. The most important reason is that it is not a war to any significant degree.
     
In fact, the President has not asked for sacrifices for his war from anyone other than members of the armed forces, and they are only being asked to do so in Iraq, whose occupation originally had nothing to do with terrorism.
      Terrorism would also not threaten the freedom of the US citizens if the government itself were not exaggerating the need to restrict those freedoms in the name of its "war".
      The terrorists make threats of random acts of murder, which at worst could reach the proportions of a large massacre in the United States or somewhere else. The terrorist networks are not a lethal danger to states or societies - and certainly not to entire cultural realms.
     
Why does the President insist on talking about the cliques of fanatics hiding in different countries as if they were a powerful enemy, almost the size of the United States itself? This creates the illusion that Osama bin Laden alone is an adversary on a par with the leader in the White House.
      Such talk must be flattering for the terrorist chief, and satisfying with respect to his goals. It is a great help to him in recruitment. It is more difficult to understand why Bush wants to give him such a gift.
      Perhaps the recent campaign was a separate issue; taking advantage of the residual shock of September 11, 2001 is a morally questionable election tactic, but it certainly seems to have been effective. It is not realistic to think that an effective election tool can be kept out of the hands of a candidate who wants to win.
     
Now that the elections are over, it would be a good time to reconsider the antiterrorist strategy. The "war" does not need impressive feats as much as it does patience and common sense. It also requires as much quiet cooperation across national borders as possible.
      If we hear some day that a terrorist group somewhere has been caught on the threshold of using a chemical or nuclear weapon, the likely heroes of the operation will not be the crew of an aircraft carrier or the soldiers of a tank brigade, but rather a group of skilfully-placed agents and well-trained police.
      If we hear that terrorism has started to wane somewhere, the likely heroes will not be the ideologues at the Pentagon, but rather the moderate forces within the Islamic world.
     
Perhaps Bush understands all of this. Perhaps he does not. In this respect, the victory speech does not portend well. If the President’s second term is a continuation of the first, the war on terror can be expected to bring more victims than true success, and to help in the growth of terrorist groups, more than in their elimination.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 5.11.2004


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Finnish President and Prime Minister congratulate Bush (5.11.2004)
  President Halonen interested in impact of US elections on Iraq (4.11.2004)
  Americans living in Helsinki disappointed by Kerry defeat (4.11.2004)

PENTTI SADENIEMI / Helsingin Sanomat
pentti.sadeniemi@hs.fi