'Cheer up, we're winning the war on terror'

Gerard Baker was at his best in Friday's Times.  The newspaper's US editor made the case that we are winning the war on terror.  He highlighted (1) declining violence in Iraq; (2) the military defeat of the Taliban; (3) the fact that al-Qaeda are on the run; and (4) the sickening of Muslim opinion towards violence and terrorism.  Now would be precisely the wrong time to retreat - a position he mocks in his piece:

"The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!”

But, as Baker's article implies, the correct way of judging the progress of the war on terror is not now with seven years ago but between now and what might have been if, for example, the Taliban had been left in control of Afghanistan or Saddam had won his game of dare with the US/ UK/ UN.  Here are Gerry Baker's key words on Afghanistan:

"Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda.

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.

Next time you hear someone say that the war in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility ask them this: do they seriously think that if the US and its allies had not ousted the Taleban and sustained an offensive against them for six years that there would have been no more terrorist attacks in the West? What characterised Islamist terrorism before the Afghan war was increasing sophistication, boldness and terrifying efficiency. What has characterised the terrorist attacks in the past few years has been their crudeness, insignificance and a faintly comical ineptitude (remember Glasgow airport?)"

The cost of the war on terror has, of course, been huge.  For too many families it has been far too much.  Only today we lost another British soldier in Afghanistan today.  But the cost hasn't been in vain.

Comments

[Alexander King]

All true, I'm sure. But the mission now seems to be as much about introducing democracy and educating women as it does about stamping on al Qaeda and the Taliban. It is pie in the sky to imagine that we can bring democracy and women's rights to that medieval land of warrior savages.

We could stamp on al Qaeda just as well using unmanned Predator drones and targeted air strikes like the US does currently on the Pakistani side of the border. This would keep our boys out of harm's way.

Do we really want to spend the next 15 years watching our young men and women getting blown up by mines?

[Patrick Ratnaraja]

"Islamist terrorism"

It is not politically to correct to use this according to David Cameron.

We don't call the IRA "Catholic Terrorists" do we?

[Pisaboy]

Patrick there's a difference between Islamic and Islamist, as all politicos should know. The problem with the term is that those who don't know about these things only hear the first five letters

[thomas]

The IRA defined themselves as Irish Republicans, therefore the terms 'Irish terrorism' and 'Republican terrorism' were used without anyone being led to believe that all Irish people or all Republicans were terrorists. There is nothing wrong with the term 'Islamic terrorism' it is perfectly descriptive and succinct. They are terrorists who justify their actions with goals drawn from their Islamic religion.

[David Eyles]

Alexander King - there is no substitute for troops on the ground to hold territory and maintain order. No matter how much air superiority you have, it is still possible for terrorists to get in and do damage to the very structures of democracy. It is analagous to our over-use of CCTV with the blind assumption that technology can prevent criminal behaviour. It doesn't, and the best way of many preventing crimes is to have policemen walking the streets.

[John W]

Alexander King: "We could stamp on al Qaeda just as well using unmanned Predator drones and targeted air strikes like the US does currently on the Pakistani side of the border."

This is complete and utter make believe

As for the "warrior savages", Afganistan was a productive and peaceful country before the Soviet invasion. If they are savage and warrior-like it is because they have had to be in order to defend their country. I think I might become quite savage myself if there were Soviet tanks rolling over the Chilterns.

Alexander your position amounts to nothing but cowardice and does a disservice to our armed forces.

[matt severn]

The Taliban have taken Peshawar. Afghanistan is still in turmoil. The Middle East still hates us. Hezbollah grow increasingly powerful. We are losing.

[Simon Newman]

Islamist terrorists carry out terrorism in the name of Islam.

IRA terrorists carried out terrorism in the name of Irish nationalism, not Catholicism (many are Marxist atheists). Same with PLO terrorists - Arab nationalists, not Islamists.

As fas as the 'war on terror' goes, it's a silly concept anyway. In Iraq the security situation has improved for now but there's no prospect of a peaceful liberal-democratic Iraq. Afghanistan looks similar. Al Qaeda and the Taleban are safe in Pakistan. The Islamist terrorist threat to the UK appears to be permanent.

[Simon Newman]

John W:
"Afganistan was a productive and peaceful country before the Soviet invasion"

?! Afghanistan has never been peaceful. Like Somalia it's one of the most warlike places on Earth. The Soviets were invited in to help the secualar, socialist Najibullah regime in its civil war with tribal insurgents. Afghanistan, or at least Kabul, was certainly more Western & secular under Najibullah than it ever has been since, but peaceful? Definitely not. And not particularly productive of anything except heroin.

[martin sewell]

Matt,

Please do not delude yourself that the Islamists would not hate you if only you let them get on with their business - which is partly about bringing about your 'submission" - by conquest if necessary. This is , after all the founding tenet and meaning of Islam.

Your description appears to owe more to your wish to be beaten than the views of the military on the ground who do nor speak in your terms.

As Tim makes clear, there are only two options if you fight these terrorists and that is whether we have a home match or an away match. You are safer if it is on their land not ours.

Perhaps we should import and distribute the US bumper sticker which declares

" George W Bush - saving your sorry ass whether you like it or not"

[Victor, NW Kent]

Alexander King

You should know that using air power only would inevitably cause deaths and maiming only at hospitals, schools and to innocent people, children and pregnant women. No combatants whatsoever will be killed or wounded.

[Alexander King]

"No combatants whatsoever will be killed or wounded".

That statement is flaty contradicted by the fact that numerous al-Qaeda leaders have been taken out using the Predator drones.

If the people of the Pashtun tribal belt do not wish to be bombed from the air, then they ought to stop playing host to murderers, thugs and fanatics.

[Sally Roberts]

We may well crow that Al-Qaeda are finding it increasingly difficult to perpetrate their attacks, but this only serves to remind me of the IRA who commented years ago "We only have to be lucky once, You have to be lucky all the time"!

[Allan McKinley]

Alexander,
If the people of Britain had not wished to be bombed from the air, they should have stopped listening to the warmonger Churchill and made peace with the German Reich! I doubt that that was an option then, or for equally proud (stiff-necked?) Pashtuns and the like now. Bombing civilians just arouses anger at the bombers.

As to the Al-Qaeda leaders: how did the US know where to find them? Simple - intelligence, mostly obtained through networks which depend on it looking more beneficial to work for the winning NATO forces rather than the Taliban. You try fighting a war without a presence on the ground - it doesn't work. I do agree though that some combatants would be killed - at least if there was intelligence to find them.

[Alexander King]

Allan, that is a woeful analogy. To compare Winston Churchill - a native of Britain who became leader through the political process - with al-Qaeda - non-natives of the Pashtun lands who have risen to prominence through murder and fear - is simply absurd. If Hitler had successfully occupied Britain and we had then suffered bombing by the Russians and Americans, then your analogy might make some semblance of sense. You and Tony Makara have a habit of making these ridiculous, ill-conceived statements.

As for your latter point - which has rather more merit - I would suggest that one factor above all has motivated informers: the large splosh of wonga being dropped into their wallets by the Americans.

[Allan McKinley]

Alexander,
My point was not the justice of the cause, but the way in which bombing tends to stiffen the wills of the population against those ordering the bombing. But since many Taleban leaders are Pashtun (and since Britain harboured non-British figures such as de Gaule) the analogy is not as poor as you make out. Militants might not be the majority in the Tribal Areas, but they are local.
As to the money - I notice no-one felt inclined to tell the US where any Al-Qaeda leaders who were already subject to a bounty were to be found in Afghanistan or Pakistan before they had a military presence.

[Alexander King]

Allan,

We need to distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban are not the reason we invaded Afghanistan - al-Qaeda are the reason.

We ought to say very straightforwardly to the Pahstun people and to the Taliban: you can do what you like within your borders but if you again host al-Qaeda, we will strike you down.

As for your last point, the US did not properly go after al-Qaeda until after 9/11 so we cannot know how well they would have been able to pursue militants without feet on the ground. Somalia, though, can serve as a useful comparison: numerous bad guys have been taken out there without any US presence on the ground other than special ops forces. Similarly, the US is now fomenting instability inside Iran - perhaps unwisely - with nothing more than cash and special ops forces. So it is clearly not necessary to have a massive military presence.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

How can we seriously believe that we are winning the "War on Terror"?

Afghanistan is a mess. Their President is little more than the mayor of Kabul (if that) and the rest of the country is run by bandits.

Not a day goes by without another British Serviceman being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq, probably announced about fourth down on the news, after all the stories about Big Brother and Amy Winehouse. Brave British people are dying for the lies and vanity of Tony Blair.

The terrorists are not and never were in Iraq. We were attacked by people born and brought up in Britain, failures of the multicultural experiment. The government wants to imprison people without charge and introduce compulsory Ausweiss (ID cards)in the name of this "war" . We are surrendering to terrorists by destroying our way of life, yet "conservatives" are so in love with the idea of military interventionism and supporting GW Bush they lose sight of how we really should be defeating terrorism.

[Richard North]

Rose tinted spectacle? Read this and then the rest.

[ruth]

Cleethorpes Rock - you are so right! Every time we stand in queues at airports surrendering our bottles of water at security, it's a 'win' for terrorism. Every time we flinch nervously as the Asian youth with a beard boards our Tube carriage, it's another win for terrorism. And our govt., which should be working to ensure our safety & to assuage our fears, does the exact opposite & feeds our fears because if we are scared enough, we will sign up for their ID card, we will submit to handing over our fingerprints & DNA, we will allow intrusivr behaviour & abuse of power by little jobsworths without asking any questions and the govt will have total control over us - which is their aim & which David Davis is fighting against.

[Richard North]

You perhaps also ought to read this:

The mission to stabilise Afghanistan is faltering. Following the rapid successes in toppling the Taliban government, passing a new constitution, and electing a president and parliament, the long road to reconstruction, reconciliation, and institutional development has grown hazardous.

Despite a significant increase in the number of foreign troops and the amount of aid to Afghanistan since 2002, violence, insecurity, and opium production have risen dramatically as Afghan confidence in their government and its international partners falls. The year 2007 has been the deadliest for American and international troops in Afghanistan since U.S.-led coalition forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001.

As we struggle to build an Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, suicide attacks against Afghan security forces have also surged.

The most immediate threat to Afghanistan comes from an anti-government insurgency that has grown considerably over the past two years. It has become apparent that the Taliban cannot fight the U.S. and coalition forces head-to-head, and coalition forces have had success in targeting Taliban leadership over the last year, capturing or killing several senior commanders.

Therefore, the Taliban rely on terrorism and ambushes, launching over 140 suicide bombings in 2007, with numerous attacks in the heart of the capital, Kabul. Over 80 Afghan civilians reportedly lost their lives in suicide attacks in September 2007 alone.

The Taliban have been able to infiltrate many areas throughout the country, especially the south and the southeast where the government is weakest, intimidating and coercing the local populations and occasionally holding territory. As a result, the prospect of again losing significant parts of Afghanistan to the forces of Islamic extremists has moved from the improbable to the possible.

[TrevorH]

In March 1918 Germany launched a massive attack in the west, centring on the British Army which had been denied reinforcements by the British PM. There was a significant retreat which left us with our 'backs to the wall'. At that time you might have said we were loosing the war, yet by November later that year the British Army was triumphant.

WW1 was won thanks to 4 years of unremitting hostilities and sacrifice and resolve. Resolve.

Its fair to say that the Afghan situation is strategically better than it might have been if we had not done anything after 911. But I am not certain we are operating with sufficient resolve in pursuing a clear victory. We are not 'loosing' we are at stalemate.

Quote; "The cost of the war on terror has, of course, been huge."
In financial terms perhaps.
But in terms of dead its not. For Britain 100 dead in 6 years is not huge - even the 12 in a month is not huge . Lets be clear about this. The Falklands death toll was some 300 in a month, extrapolate that over 6 years.

If you do not consider the result worth even 1 life then OK, but if you think that preventing a rise to ascendency of fundamental muslim terrorism and hegemony is a worthwhile enterprise then our current losses are sustainable.

But if we are to maintain our resolve to wear these terrorists down we need to make clear to the public that we are pursuing the conflict competently and with clarity. Thats why Richard Norths campaign for proper mine protected vehicles and other tactics like 'Pucara' type aircraft is important.

Thats why we need more troops more support from other NATO countries. Right now I suspect our terrorist opponents think our government and its European 'allies' lack resolve. Only when they have been worn down will that view, and their resolve change.

[TrevorH]

What a pity I do not use 'Preview' I would see then that I cannot spell 'losing' properly