Operation Neptune Spear ended the life of Usama Bin Laden (UBL) in 2011. America’s dreaded enemy was put to death by the bullets of ”heroic” US Navy Seals almost effortlessly, according to Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty.
The Pentagon finally did away with the monster it created. US officials publicly stated that there is no longer armed conflict, but strategic operations ‘‘to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America’’ in its place.
Bush’s ‘‘War on Terror’’ turned Obama’s ‘‘Overseas Contingency Operations’’ has now officially become ‘‘Countering Violent Extremism’’.
Quite apart from the fancy wording, the Americans do have what they think is a valid rationale in fighting terrorism the world over; a rationale that I think we would have, if Sri Lanka were at least a regional superpower — keeping up appearances.
In understanding the politics behind the scenario, I believe a brief visit to the facts would be useful. The Global War on Terror, USA’s many military operations against global terrorism following the September 11 attack, in Afghanistan, Iraq, The Philippines and Pakistan and across the Sahara, has focussed mainly on crippling what is known as Islamic Terrorism in its many forms. The operations arguably came to an end after UBL’s death in 2011, but troops remain stationed to counter possible attacks from the remaining factions of Al Qaeda.
It is quite evident that the Americans have been quick and often ruthless about ‘‘fighting’’ terrorism; after all fighting is about the only thing they are good at. But given their superior military power and ‘‘expertise’’ in warfare, utter shame is what becomes synonymous with their work, considering their failure in rooting out the enemy. Terrorism just keeps coming back. The complexity involved in the issue makes one think that there should exist a greater force at play rather than military confrontations and hot combat; something that cannot be killed with a bullet; something that is rooted deep inside.
Simply put, the Global Policeman has failed to identify the causes and the circumstances that give rise to the adversity he fights.
In a world where diplomacy is a double edged sword, a corporate mind-set is what I feel to be the most effective way to the top. And corporate it is in the sense that there is not the tiniest room given to ethical practice and collective well-being; corporate in the sense that the three things you think of when you wake up in the morning are profit, profit and profit. This syndrome which has taken over the US administration for decades, most notably after the end of World War II, has shaped up its economy, its politics, its strategies and its culture. And the results have been disastrous.
It would take a 10 year old to analyse the facts and to determine America’s role in creating, nurturing and eventually criticising terrorist factions. But this, as most malpractices of the privileged, is something to be ignored. Cold War politics, involvement in the Arab Spring movements, the Arms Race, sponsoring the Middle East crisis; the list is endless. Nevertheless, I see no point in shouting this out and accusing the Americans when teaching pigs to fly seems a more promising pastime. It is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein and UBL, the very aggressors and terror activists that the US disposed of, were once sponsored and nurtured by them with a view of their ulterior motive; profit.
Several independent writers have recently argued that forceful occupation and suppression creates suicide bombers, civil uprisings and other acts of terrorism in the eyes of the US authorities.
One of these days, the US State Department should take back what they claimed Iran to be; the Most Active State Sponsor of Terrorism. I believe that it is quite another country which claims the distinction.
Leave a Reply