Is the War against Terrorism worth it?

I was asked to look at whether or not citizens should give up their civil rights in the War against Terrorism. This is problematic because the proposition is logically flawed and the actions of governments around the globe are riddled with instances where they have not acted in the best interests of the public. Why should the public allow for further attacks on individual rights and freedoms from the state, premised on faulty logic?

Firstly, the proposition involves a serious nonsense of language. Terrorism is a violent tactic used by combatants to achieve an outcome. The thing it is is a tactic, it is not an entity like another state (say North Korea). The accepted use of war in the language sense is to describe an action of armed conflict between states, involving loss of life, territorial gains etc. The term “War against Terrorism” is logically a nonsense of language yet the term is widely used and spoken. It is hardly surprising that George Bush famously coined the phrase when responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre, he was after all a man hardly known for his towering intellect. Yet the term has survived without any major criticism since and is still common in various forms which suggests that its continued use signifies something else.

One such explanation for the longevity of the expression might be that it is convenient symbolism. The mass media thrives on such conveniences, they provide easy stereotypical concepts which the media industries can use to communicate a message to a broad audience. A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words in one sense but it often lacks order or rationale, its meaning is often augmented by cultural backgrounds. In the case of the “war on terrorism”, such disasters as 9/11, the London bombings and Bali have generated spectacular and powerful imagery which has been recycled endlessly across every known medium. Terrorism isn’t a particularly recent tactic by combatants and is unlikely to ever disappear from the field of human conflict so the role of the mass media industries in perpetuating the symbolism inherit in the terrorist attacks is curious. The convenience of such symbols and their role in modern mythology might be explained by its apolitical nature. Terrorist attacks are at their root, extreme criminal actions (1) which generally can be easily portrayed in the manner of poor victims (who we can sympathise with) and the faceless perpetrator (who we thus fear). In this situation most people will tend to emotionally relate to the victims, in a sense we become victims because we aren’t terrorists. Hence the widespread “appeal” of such stories and images in the modern media, they are essentially apolitical in the same way other crime stories are. Lacking political controversy has become a fundamental property of modern mass media news which sees this lack of controversy as proof of a balanced coverage.

It would also seem that terrorists are only too aware of the appetite of the mass media industries for sensation. Obviously global reach is paramount to any organisation trying to spread a message and sadly it seems the mass media conglomerates are only too keen to help the terrorists spread their message of fear around the planet. In the past there has been some perverse political capital generated for leaders in terror affected states, George Bush and John Howard both enjoyed significant increases in popularity polls during the height of the post 9/11 and Bali terror incidents, possibly a consequence of each political leader’s capacity to symbolise the ability to cope and act. (2) Some might also argue that spreading fear is a useful device for social control however it is likely to lead to social breakdown and alienation. Why the mass media continues to propagate such negativity is another topic however the response of the public and policy makers to the fear is predictably illogical since it is predicated on emotion.

This emotional state is the preferred territory of entertainment industries like TV. In his article on Rudd vs The Oz (3), Bernard Keene cites the comparative market reach for TV news and print with TV news reaching almost ten times the number of people compared with print media. This continues the trend reported in a Harris poll in 2007 (4) which listed TV news as the dominant source of news driven by time constraints for adults. The simplification of news by TV is not news, essentially TV content is simple and loaded with emotional effect. In this scenario it is hardly surprising that political debate is still dominated by responses to immediate situations since this is part of the short news cycles which are a feature of modern mass media. Such knee jerk reactions might therefore explain the hurried and procedurally complex raft of legislation that has been passed into Australian law since 9/11 and it illustrates the failure of the political process to rationally respond to a pressing social problem.

That the so-called “war on terrorism” has been an almost unmitigated failure is pretty much beyond debate. Not only is the concept flawed as noted above but the stated objectives are completely unachievable. Destroying terrorism by military action ignores the fact terrorism is a behaviour not a physical opponent. The inappropriate use of the military and the subsequent abuses of power that are illustrated by the such things as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, (5) and the countless civilian casualties(6) has only succeeded in building regional resentment to the US and its allies which in turn is fostering the very behaviour the invasion is supposed to arrest. The damage abroad is actually counterproductive to the concept that these actions are making the public safer. It is clear from the recent upsurge in terrorists attacks in Pakistan and Indonesia that foreign nationals are targets and consequently unsafe abroad.(7,8)

If the military policy abroad is a failure (9) in terms of its objective and outcomes, then the deprivation of liberty at home is equally hard to justify. The proposition is, that such things as enhanced police powers and state surveillance are supposed to prevent home grown terrorism yet there is little evidence that the laws are appropriate or even needed since terrorism is still a criminal act conceivably covered by existing criminal law. In a recent news article Australian Federal Police Association representative Jim Torr described the new anti-terror laws as “”procedurally very complex” and thus conducive to mistakes.” The article by Sally Neighbour (10) adds that “The margin for error has been compounded by pressure to achieve convictions. In October 2007 a senior AFP counter-terrorism officer testified that police had been told to charge “as many suspects as possible” in order to test the laws. ”

One of the problem with such laws is illustrated by the current slow progress in reforming them. Alarmingly the so-called reform process is even considering granting police the power to enter and search premises without a warrant. The issue of infringement and reduction in basic civil rights should be a concern of all yet the issue is essentially an intellectual exercise and easily displaced by emotional states like those propagated by the mass media. Furthermore the effects of the laws are not spread equitably, some social minorities are more adversely affected whilst social majorities enjoy the dubious benefit of feeling “safer” (11). Unchecked, such laws inevitably lead to a persecution of minorities based on race, colour, ethnicity or some dissenting political belief. Universal declarations of human rights, such as the International Convenant of Civil and Political Rights (12) are supposed to offer all of humanity certain fundamental rights however the blatant disregard of such human rights as demonstrated by the US in the War on Terrorism should serve as a serious reality check on any optimistic expectation of a free and liberal society anywhere.

The self serving complicity of the mass media with the terrorists and the deprivation of liberty by the state are very serious issues but any debate about these problems ignores the 800lb gorilla in the room. In 2008 the US Congress approved a budget of $864 billion (US) to fund three military operations in the War on Terror (13). In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein explores the rise of what she calls “the disaster capitalism complex”. (14) She describes how private business interests are reaping a massive financial windfalls from government defence and security budgets which is simultaneously undermining the publicly owned state apparatus. Given the huge potential for financial gain, there can be little doubt that such private business interests have a powerful motive for perpetuating a farcical state of war against an ephemeral enemy that can never be eliminated by force of arms. The coinciding interests between the disaster capitalism complex and the highly corporatised mass media industry has extremely serious implications. I would argue these links deserve far more attention than the acts of terrorism or the issue of civil rights but given the circumstances, any 4th estate investigation is likely only in some other universe.

References
1. Lucy Bannerman, There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP – http://business.timesonline.co.uk (accessed 18 August 2009)
2.David Altheide, Format and Symbols in TV Coverage – International Studies Quarterly Vol 31 No.2 (June 1987)
3. Bernard Keene, The PM v Chris Mitchell: the feud hots up – Crikey.com.au (accessed 18 August 2009)
4. The Harris Poll® #52, June 11, 2007
5. Joan Walsh, The Abu Ghraib files – salon.com (accessed 18 August 2009)
6. Wikipedia lists civilian casualties for Iraq and Afghanistan as anywhere from 107,000 to over a million, its a safe bet that no one is really counting
7. Jack the Insider Blog, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ – accessed 18 August 2009 – I mean if our cricketers are not safe what is the world coming to? Maybe they should wear Not American t-shirts
8. A recent Gallup poll published by Al Jazeera found 59% of respondents listed the US as the biggest threat to Pakistan – http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/08/20098910857878664.html (accessed 18 August 2009)
9. Paul Rogers, Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration – Oxford Research Group 2005
10. Sally Neighbour, Haunted by Haneef – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au (accessed 18 August 2009)
11. Cass R. Sunstein, Fear and Liberty – Social Research Volume 71 No 4 Winter 2004
12. UN Declaration – http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm (accessed 18 August 2009) – note the US has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant.
13. Amy Belasco, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 – Congressional Research Service, May 2009
14. Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine – Allen Lane 2007 – pp 298-307