US terrorism report: Selective data, wrong lessons
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 12, 2008, 00:12
The data provided in the US State Department's annual
terrorism report for 2007 points to some interesting if puzzling conclusions.
The much publicised document, made available 30 April via the State
Department's website, makes no secret of the fact that Al-Qaeda is back, strong
as ever. It also suggests that violence worldwide is nowhere near subsiding,
despite President Bush's repeated assurances regarding the success of his
"war on terror."
Will the report inspire serious reflection on the US's
detrimental foreign policy and its role in the current situation?
Let's look at some of the data. To start with, take
Pakistan. Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda-inspired attacks in the country more than
doubled (from 375 to 877) between 2006 and 2007. These attacks have claimed the
lives of 1,335 people, compared to 335 in a previous report. That is a jump of
almost 300 per cent.
Then there's Afghanistan, which was supposedly
"liberated" shortly after 11 September 2001. The number of attacks
reported there increased a sharp 16 per cent in 2007. Some 1,127 violent
incidents killing 1,966 people represent a significant surge in violence
compared to 2006's 1,257 deaths.
There have also been many other violent incidents around the
world, including but not limited to North Africa, the terrorist bombings in
Algeria in particular.
But this is barely half the story -- or 40 per cent of it,
if we want to be as specific as the terrorism report. Iraq accounted for 60 per
cent of worldwide terrorism fatalities.
Considering the fact that the horrifying violence currently
witnessed in Iraq was unheard of prior to the US invasion of 2003, will the
Bush administration take a moment to connect the dots? Even a third grader
could figure this one out: the US occupation was a major, if not sole factor,
in Iraq's relentless bloodbath. In order to right the wrong in Iraq, the US
military should clearly just withdraw, and Bush -- or whoever next claims the
White House -- should stop fabricating pretexts to justify a prolonged mission.
On 1 May 2003, President Bush declared the end of major
combat operations in Iraq. As he stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS
Abraham Lincoln a huge banner behind him bore the words "Mission
Accomplished." The New York Times then wrote, "the Bush
administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from
Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence
to less than two divisions by the fall."
Instead, more than five years after Bush's speech, the
administration seems determined to maintain a military surge, having added
20,000 soldiers. Making no apologies for the war's contribution to an increase
in terrorist activities, Bush's officials continue to rationalise the
surge as a commonsense response to ongoing violence, conveniently omitting the
US's own part in this violence. The State Department report doesn't classify
any of the thousands of innocent victims killed by US or coalition forces as
victims of terrorism.
Russ Travers, deputy director of the Counterterrorism
Centre, stated on the day the report was published, "It's a fair statement
that around the globe people are getting increasingly efficient at killing
other people." While Travers' assertion is undoubtedly true, there seems
to be no intention of providing any context, no connection drawn to the US's
direct invasions, or indirect but equally devastating role in campaigns of violence,
whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.
But what the State Department's terrorism report didn't fail
to do was once again identify Iran as the world's "most active" state
sponsor of terrorism. As
reported in the Associated Press on 1 May, Iran was responsible for
"supporting Palestinian extremists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq,
where elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps continued to give
militants weapons, training and funding."
The irony is that the report further contributes to the US's
long-touted case for war against Iran; ironic because the report's findings, if
viewed responsibly, substantiate the claim that the Bush administration's
policies have only made the world more unsafe. Wouldn't a war against Iran hike
up the number of violent or terrorist incidents?
It also remains unclear how powerful Al-Qaeda really is, and
how much of its capabilities were hyped in order to enable the Bush
administration to continue its mission. Consider the two occasions Al-Qaeda was
back in the news recently.
News media cited official Afghan reports attributing the
recent assassination attempt on US-ally Afghan President Hamid Karzai to
Al-Qaeda. In other reports, the US rationalised its own assassination of a
leading Somali militia leader, Aden Hashi Eyrow, on 1 May as targeting a key
Al-Qaeda member. It's not the logic of the assassination that is key here, but
rather the fact that while Al- Qaeda has reached a position of strength that
can penetrate several layers of defences in Afghanistan, the US is getting
itself involved in a regional feud in Somalia. Why would the Bush
administration be chasing Al-Qaeda in Somalia, as in Iraq, if the group is
reportedly in the most powerful position in Afghanistan?
Moreover, if Al-Qaeda indeed exists on such a large and
influential scale in so many countries, isn't it time to question the logic
used by the Bush administration's "war on terror" that was meant to
weaken and destroy Al-Qaeda in the first place?
It may be, of course, that Al-Qaeda's power and outreach is
inflated for political reasons, where every conflict the US is involved in
becomes immediately reduced to those who support, shield or host Al-Qaeda or
Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, thus justifying US military intervention anywhere.
Instead of dealing with the obvious truths that the
terrorism report highlights, the authors of the report have resorted to another
logic that places blame squarely on external circumstance, never holding the US
government accountable for its actions.
Finally, is there really a need for lengthy reports that
cost large sums of money and thousands of work hours if the lessons gleaned are
always the wrong ones, leading to more blunders that prompt more violence, and
more terrorism reports?Ramzy
Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has
been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book
Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People�s
Press, London). Read more about him on his website: ramzybaroud.net.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor