Whenever we hear of military plans, even ancient ones, we find the word strategy is often mentioned. It seems that the word is a prerequisite if military or political issues are discussed. If, however, we stop to inquire what strategy is and what it really means, we will find that different people will offer differing explanations and definitions. Even venerable and respected institutions fall into confusion when it comes to a simple definition of the word. You hear married couples talking about their strategy to make life pleasant and successful. You hear the same from salesmen, engineers, businessmen and military officers. The word is at the top of the list of most misused words.
Another term that is used as often as strategy is “politics”. This word invariably pops up when people discuss relations between nations. Here we see some confusion between the politics and diplomacy.
If we examine the meaning of politics, we will see it has wide and all-encompassing applications. There is politics in diplomacy but we also have economic politics as well as politics for the military which originate from politicians.
We may look at military plans and find that they usually focus on certain ideas leading to the accomplishment of certain goals. This is common to all plans and all areas of planning. Military plans are usually influenced by either Eastern or Western military strategists.
The most important Western system of strategy originated in the 19th century with the Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz. His theory posits that war often produces unexpected results as it is impossible to predict outcomes. At the same time, his theory ignores political dimensions since it deals purely with military ones.
“Total War” is another Western military doctrine. It means the total destruction of the enemy’s army as well as the control of its political leadership and the destruction of its society’s will to fight.
These theories were produced in the 19th century and are products of that century’s military and social conditions — which are very different from those today. Thus when we examine them, we must take into consideration not only new social structures but also technological and scientific advances. We must also consider issues that are dominant now and are at the center of 20th and — supposedly — 21st century morality. I am referring to:
• The international community’s rejection of territorial expansion through the use of force.
• The rejection of the use of weapons of mass destruction.
• The emphasis on human rights.
• International disagreement on the definition of “terrorism.”
We find that the lack of clarity when it comes to “Total War” increases every time international and humanitarian resistance to military interference comes to the fore.
However, when we examine what is happening today in Afghanistan we see the obvious implementation of Clausewitz’s ideas, mainly because the international community in general and the West in particular have chosen to ignore the accepted moral principles of the 21st century. The fogginess of the situation has increased because of the emergence of certain new elements: starting with the Northern Alliance and the matter of who should govern Afghanistan and ending with who the Pashtun and the West will accept as representatives in the Afghanistan’s new governing body.
The West in general and the United States in particular are well aware that they must not leave Afghanistan’s destiny in the hands of the tribal warlords. But at what price to the country? Will the destruction of the Taleban and the capture of Bin Laden be sufficient? Or are there other objectives — declared or undeclared? The fogginess of the situation is not due to the fighters themselves but rather to the absence of organization and the chaos and disagreement among the Afghans. These are the main reasons for the fogginess obscuring the war. At the same time, we have the war declared by the United States against what it calls terrorism. On the American internal front, this has led to the emergence of new, or the amendment of existing, legislation. The legislation is designed to aid in gathering information relative to security, even if the legislation runs counter to the so-called holy principles of American democracy. Since the purpose of the new laws is to serve American internal security objectives, can we suppose that Western democracy has become the victim of its own security goals? Where is the Constitution of 1787? What about the Constitutional amendments that guarantee the basic freedoms, especially the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments? In light of the new security measures adopted by the West in general and the United States in particular, we should remember the reasons they have given for criticizing the Third World’s human rights record. (And by no means do I declare the Third World innocent of the charges.) The Third World was accused of not respecting its citizens’ personal freedom. Military tribunals were seen as symbols of dictatorial rule and so to call a court “military” was unacceptable. Suddenly, however, unacceptable has become acceptable and abusing human rights has become a national security necessity. The fogginess of the Afghan situation has now been transferred to the West. Or is it the fogginess in our own minds that did not enable us to see the West for what it is?
What is so strange about the West’s present actions is that it knows full well that all its laws concerning security and requiring information gathering, whether covert or overt, are temporary in nature. The laws have been made in the past and usually stem from a situation requiring certain actions at a certain time.
The West, we suppose, is also aware that all its actions have specific motives behind them. Is it then wise to exert our efforts in trying to understand the actions or would it be wiser to try to understand the motives behind them?
This is surely confusing. Why hasn’t the West focused on understanding the motives of what it calls “terrorism” instead of only trying to find out what the terrorists are planning? The government of the United States apparently seeks to eradicate the symptoms without treating the disease which caused them. Or is there perhaps a more sinister reason for not trying to understand what is causing the disease they call terrorism?
The way you deal with others, we believe, is what determines their reaction to you. This is why the Prophet of God, peace upon him, said: “Your religion is shown in the way you deal with others.”
Why then does the West avoid opening its foreign policy file to re-examine the many tragic results that its policies have produced? Why does the West not try to rectify what needs rectifying — starting with crimes committed, especially in Palestine? Why does it not try to deal objectively with Islam and refrain from linking it to terrorism and hate? If we Muslims had called the terrorist acts committed in Oklahoma, Waco, Ireland and Serbia, Christian terrorist acts (which they were not), the West would have been up in arms against us.
On Nov. 24 Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper published some comments by Dennis Ross. He said: “Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal expressed his displeasure with the negative stand by the United States on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He considered that this stand would drive a sane man to insanity. But American officials can use the same term used by the foreign minister to describe American reaction to the Saudi stand itself.”
This is where a veil of foggy ambiguity is draped over the issue — by design. And this is indeed one of the main objectives of international Zionism. It uses ambiguity and fogginess to infer and imply that the issues involved are very complicated and that a solution would be virtually impossible to find. In fact, the solution is crystal clear: UN Resolutions 242 and 338 which establish the formula of land for peace.
Saudi Arabia’s firm backing of United Nations resolutions, its support for international legitimacy and its demands for clear measures to fight terrorism — as set out by Interior Minister Prince Naif prior to Sept. 11 — all of these are considered by Dennis Ross ways to drive a sane man insane! A huge gap in logic separates what Prince Saud Al-Faisal articulated and what was expressed and implied by Dennis Ross.
Taking other people’s intelligence lightly and condescending to it is a common weakness of the Great Powers. It is also one of the leading causes of their diminishing influence.
Protecting its legitimate interests is every nation’s major preoccupation, whether the nation is First, Second or Third World. As any logical person will agree, those interests have to be protected no matter what occurs on the world stage. Where then is the United States’ interest in letting Israel run unrestrained, committing crimes and atrocities in total disregard of international laws? Is there any interest here other than doing the bidding of the Israeli lobby so that American politicians win elections? The legitimate rights of an entire nation are compromised by the United States in this instance for the narrow interests of certain politicians and interest groups.
Vast sums of money and enormous quantities of weapons are donated to Israel — all paid for by the American taxpayer; the money and weapons of course jeopardize American interests with other nations in the Middle East and the rest of the world as well.
I would like to return to the two fronts on which the United States is fighting its battle against terrorism. What will the United States do after the capture of Bin Laden? Try him in an American court and thus making him a hero to many?
Or, will it execute him thus making him a martyr who will live forever? Or will they turn him over to the Northern Alliance, knowing in advance what his fate will be?
On the other front — the internal one — will the US continue to create legislation that will undermine the foundations of its Constitution? Or will it re-examine its foreign policy and redirect it to prevent new tragedies and injustices? By doing so, it would prevent innocent people from becoming victims of terrorism and perhaps also prevent terrorism itself. Our Maker has bestowed upon us the blessings of reason and if we lack reason, prejudice and ignorance will surely prevail. I conclude with the words of a 20th century British scientist: “Minds are like parachutes. They are useless until opened.”