War on Terror: End of Post-9/11 Era

When the artist Art Spiegelman told his story of 9/11 in a graphic novel, he called it In the Shadow of No Towers. It was an arresting thought, the gloom cast not by the twin peaks of the World Trade Centre but by their absence. We have been living in that shadow for the last 10 years -- but it's time we escaped it. We need to declare the end of the post-9/11 era.
Of course that will be impossible for those directly affected. No one expects -- and no one would ask -- those still grieving for a wife or son, a husband or sister, to put the September 11 attacks behind them just because an anniversary with a round number is looming. What deepens their tragedy is that it continues. The television documentaries, newspaper testimonies and eloquent reminiscences that have been flowing for days leave no doubt that for those directly affected, 9/11 will never let them go.
Artists and writers too will resist closing the book on September 11 any time soon. Happenings on that scale take many decades, not just one, to process. As Salman Rushdie puts it: "I think these great events have to rot down. Maybe another generation has to look at it."
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
If grief and art will necessarily stay fixated, the realm of politics needs to move on. Osama Bin Laden is dead; George W. Bush and Tony Blair are long gone from office. The two 9/11 wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are not over, but both now have a timetable for troops to come home. The phrase of the age -- "the war on terror" -- has been retired.
As far as Al-Qaida is concerned, it has been decapitated: as well as Osama Bin Laden, the network's new number two and chief operational planner was killed last month, and the man branded its "foreign minister" revealed to be in Pakistani custody on Monday. Most analysts say Al-Qaida is weakened, its capacity to act reduced.
Post-9/11 Landscape
Of course no wants to tempt fate with complacency. For that reason one aspect of the post-9/11 landscape will and should remain in place: vigilance. Police and intelligence agencies charged with protecting the public cannot revert to September 10 pretending that 9/11 -- or, for that matter, Bali, Madrid and London -- did not happen. The threat has changed, but it has not disappeared.
Other aspects of the post-9/11 order persist too. Guantanamo Bay remains open, one of the early disappointments of the Barack Obama presidency. The US "homeland security" apparatus created a decade ago is now well dug in. Given the tenacity of such bureaucracies -- plenty of cold war American military structures linger to this day -- few would bet on this newer one allowing itself to be mothballed.
Overarching and Paramount Threat
Moreover, it is the mind-set that has to go. In those dazed days after the attacks, a new foreign policy doctrine was hastily assembled. It said that the world faced a single, overarching and paramount threat in the form of violent jihadism. Every other battle had to be subordinated to, or subsumed into, that one. And the call went beyond foreign policy. Culture, too, was to be enlisted in a clash of civilizations between Islamism and the west that would rank alongside the great 20th century struggles against communism and fascism. Christopher Hitchens confessed he felt "exhilaration" as he saw the towers fall. At last there would be war against "dull and vicious theocratic fascism. I am prepared for this war to go on for a very long time. I will never become tired of waging it, because it is a fight over essentials. And because it is so interesting."
Such talk has been a constant of the 9/11 decade but its time has passed. For one thing, it's predicated on a mistake. The right way to regard the 2001 attacks was as a heinous and wicked crime -- not a declaration of war. As Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, argued in her first Reith lecture calling it a war "legitimizes the terrorists as warriors & quote. It is exactly what Al-Qaida wanted -- feeding their fantasies of grandeur -- and we gave it to them.
Second, post-9/11 thinking has led to grave and lethal misjudgments. The greatest of these is agglomeration, lumping disparate and complex threats under one easy heading. The most notorious example will always be Iraq, casting that as part of the war on terror even though there was nothing to connect Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden.
But it worked in subtler ways too. The director of Chatham House, Robin Niblett -- who was in Washington when flight 77 struck the Pentagon -- recalls how, during the cold war, regimes in Africa, Asia or Latin America won western backing as they fought off local, domestically motivated rebels simply by casting their opponents as part of "the global Communist foe". In the past decade, the west fell for the same trick all over again. Hosni Mubarak gained a new lease on office by insisting he was holding back the Muslim Brotherhood, which he portrayed as the Egyptian branch of the global jihad. This week has brought fresh evidence that Colonel Gaddafi was playing the same game, persuading British intelligence to become complicit in his torture of dissidents, partly by painting the Libyan opposition in Al-Qaida colors. "The danger of the 9/11 mindset is that you try to compress all kinds of challenges into a single threat," says Niblett.
Making the war against jihadism paramount has had other consequences too, still being felt. On post-9/11 logic, the shredding of civil liberties -- condemned by Manningham-Buller as handing "victory to the terrorists" -- was almost inevitable, for surely such freedoms had to take second place to the supreme threat. More serious has been the unleashing of a rampant Islamophobia -- intense in Europe, recently lethal in Norway and rising in the US. That too is all but inevitable once Islamism is deemed the greatest peril faced by the human race.
Famously Tony Blair declared after 9/11 that the "kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux". But the kaleidoscope has been shaken again -- most dramatically by this year's Arab revolutions. Whatever landscape was created once the dust of the World Trade Centre had settled in 2001 has been remade in 2011. Change has come to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya -- and Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with it.
Again, this is not to say the dangers have receded. Would-be terrorists have seen the earth-shaking impact a spectacular attack can have -- especially if it prompts a massive reaction that fuels the terrorists' cause, as the Iraq invasion did for Al-Qaida. If one of the Arab revolutions fails, an Al-Qaida offshoot could find purchase in that country. But vigilance is not the same as a careless, undiscriminating monomania.
Even those who were not there say the memory is so vivid, it feels like yesterday. But it was not yesterday. It was 10 years ago. We should mark the 9/11 anniversary with respect and care for those who died. But then we ought to close this sorry and bloody chapter -- and bury the mentality it created.

War on Terror Destroying US Credibility on Human Rights

Ten years later, there is still an aura surrounding the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC). People remember where they were when they heard about it.
The United States immediately refused an offer of assistance from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the defense alliance whose Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them. NATO has not been the same since. The United States later used its airpower to bomb the Taliban and Al-Qaida's regular forces to bits. That was also a resolute act that was carried out without any significant presence on the ground in Afghanistan, and which did not provoke any particularly strong protest.
Eliminating Terrorism Menace
The decisive action in the period immediately after 11 September was an act of speech, that of defining the situation as war. And then there was a war, against Iraq. The justification that the United States gave for going to war was not correct; there was no tie between Al-Qaida and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as the United States had alleged, and people knew that. When this became known to the public in the country that is the US main ally, the United Kingdom, it cost social democrat Tony Blair his job as prime minister. US public opinion hardly reacted at all.
But there was some protest. One of the critics, interestingly enough, was a razor sharp analyst named John Mearsheimer. "If you are the strongest guy in the street, why stand on the rooftop and shout it out," he asked. If US military power is absolutely superior to that of other states, why throw away a huge amount of resources, which could advantageously be deployed elsewhere, on something that cannot possible be of vital national interest?
Now, in 2011, when the war in Iraq alone has cost the United States more than the war in Vietnam, and it seems quite unclear what the benefits have actually been, there are many more people asking the same question. But when it was essential to question the war, Mearsheimer and a few other skeptics stood completely alone. In Europe, a majority of us asked whether Al-Qaida was what the Germans call duellfähig, worth a duel, with the world's strongest state by far. Would not a police operation have been a reaction that was considerably more in proportion to the situation, and considerably better suited to get results?
Deterioration in Quality of Life
That question remains valid. Others have been added to it. The main question now being asked is how to get out at the least possible cost. The costs have already been far too high. The whole tone of US politics, and to some extent that of European politics as well, has become increasingly edgy and security-oriented. This is a deterioration in quality of life that affects us all.
The US warfare has been costly, not only in human lives and in financial terms, but also politically. The United States has managed to preserve the decisively important alliance with Saudi Arabia, and officially at least, working relations with Pakistan have been maintained, but over the last ten years, the United States has become even less popular among wide sectors of the population in the Middle East. For Americans, there is now even more reason to ask the question: "Why do they hate us?" than there was in 2001.
When the United States chose to define relations with radical Islam as war, this led to extended effects in all of Christendom, and in the entire Islamic world, the Ummah. Before 9/11, we in Norway talked about "immigrants." Now we talk about "Muslims." One precondition for the events of 22 July was the steadily growing tension between these imaginary quantities in the decade before. Here we have two examples of a general tendency that cannot be explained by 9/11, but which cannot be considered in isolation from 9/11 either.
US Ties With Central Players
With regard to the United States' place in the world in general, 9/11 seems chiefly to have strengthened and accelerated already existing tendencies. The US shift away from Europe toward the rest of the world has been obvious. The United States is, therefore, not overly concerned about NATO being weakened. Tensions between the United States and the other central players on the world stage, particularly China and India, have become bigger. These two states were dissatisfied with their ranking and influence before 9/11, and after ten years of growth, they are even more dissatisfied.
The border between India and Pakistan has consolidated its position as one of the places where a war in Asia could break out; it is probably the most likely place. No one now talks triumphantly about the United States being the strongest empire in world history, as many Americans did before 9/11. Nevertheless, the United States is still the strongest state by far in military terms and will remain so for some years to come.
The candidate for the most important repercussion of 9/11 is related to the polarization in relations with Muslims and in relations with China and India, but it is more general in character. After the United States' behavior at Guantanamo and in Abu Ghraib, it is more difficult for Washington to speak from a human-rights perspective.
Western Hegemony
After the unsuccessful campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is more difficult to credibly claim that US political and economic systems can be forcibly exported. Taken together with China's and India's steadily strengthening positions, this means that the West's ascendancy in global politics has been considerably weakened.
In the future, the "war on terror" may be seen as an important stage in the windup of Western hegemony. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. The "war on terror" was a failed reaction to it.

Whither Middle East Peace Process?

US President Barack Obama, during his maiden visit to the Middle East in May 2009, delivered an important speech in the Egyptian capital -- Cairo. In that address, Obama said that Israel would have to suspend the construction of its legal settlements on the Palestinian lands on the West Bank for the restart of Arab-Israel peace talks. Almost instantly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had rejected the proposal of the US President. The Israeli prime minister said that the building of the settlements was suspended for one year that means up to September 2009 during the tenure of President George W. Bush and after expiry of the timeframe Israel will again start the construction. President Osama had to withstand that insult silently. It had become clear that the Fatah party government of Palestine would not sit for peace talks unless Israel stopped building settlements.
Arab-Israel Conflicts
Since then, Israel has established a good number of new illegal settlement areas on the West Bank and the captured East Jerusalem and built several thousands of structures on the Palestinian lands. Rather arrogant and aggressive Netanyahu and his government blamed the Palestinians for the capture of lands. The argument of the Israeli government was the Palestinians are divided, among them the HAMAS is determined to eliminate the existence of Israel, so no peace talks are possible with them. As the United States and European Union (EU) have recognized HAMAS as terrorist so the plea of Israel is acceptable to them. In the internal politics Obama has earned the wrath of the US capitalist over his national health bill. And his popularity was nosedived.
In addition, Obama did not get enough opportunity to think over the Middle East as he lost majority in the Congress in the midterm polls. Moreover, he will have to seek votes in November 2012 to become the US President for the second term. Obama knows it very well that it will not be possible for him to win the election by annoying the 'most powerful' Israeli lobbies in the US. And as a result, he prefers keeping mum on the issue of Arab-Israel conflicts.
Unexpected Address
President Obama on 19 May gave a completely unexpected statement at the US Department of State. He had definitely an intention of revising to some extent the present anti-US policy in the Middle East. At the beginning of the so-called 'Arab autumn' process the US seemed to be against the trend. But as the development began going out of the control of the US policy Washington welcomed the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt one after another. But in other places the United States is still lagging behind the pace of developments. Washington was in a dilemma for a long time regarding the mass upsurge in Yemen and Syria. Huge criticisms were raised in the US over mysterious indifference of the Obama administration to sending of Saudi Arabian troops to quell rebellion in Bahrain.
In his State Department address, Obama made attempts to minimize those criticisms. He said: 'The US welcomes those changes that expand the scopes for self determination and opportunities- there should not be any doubt about it. For many decades we have been admitting the no change in situation of this region or the Middle East, but now we have gotten the chance of following the path through which the world could advance in the right direction.'
Obama in that address further said that the basis of the Arab-Israeli crisis would be a 'secured Israel' and on the basis of an independent Palestinian state, and the borders of the two states will be along the demarcation line that was before the 1967 war. But Obama said that some changes along the common borders here and there were possible on the basis of mutual understanding.
On 2 May, the US commandoes swooped on a residence at Abbottabad in Pakistan and killed Usama Bin Ladin. Since then popularity of Obama has jumped high repeatedly. The US President might have thought that he would implement his 2009 Cairo address riding on this popularity. Besides, he might have realized that Israel has been using the peace talks with the Palestinian as a technique of killing time and the crisis will no be solved this way. Now he is thinking over the 2002 Saudi proposal. In that Saudi proposal it was stipulated that the borders of Palestine and Israel will be fixed along the demarcation line of 1967 and all Arab states will recognize Israel simultaneously.
Bad Tempered Dialogue
The US foreign policy is not determined in Washington. This is determined in Israel and the Israelis secure this control by dint of the strength of the Israeli lobbies in the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was scheduled meet the US President in Washington on the following day of the speech of Obama. Prior to his departure for Washington, Netanyahu announced that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to Israel. He said that the ground realities have under gone many changes (because of illegal Israeli settlements) since 1967 and those changes cannot be ruled out. In other words, he said that the Jews (those came from Europe) had the right to build settlements in the areas where they have settlements during the Bible era that means in entire Palestine.
The Jewish people in the United States could hardly be one-thirtieth of the total population. But in pursuance of Zionist conspiracy, they have taken control of the US politics, economy, and media. Of them, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most powerful group. It being said that no bill in the US Congress could be passed without approval from the AIPAC. Obama might have thought that he will be able to create influence by addressing the AIPAC conference. The AIPAC conference silently heard the speech of Obama. But when the US President referred to the 1967 borderline they raised voice in unison to condemn him. To pacify the anger, President Obama was compelled to announce that the United States will oppose the Arab proposal in the UN General Assembly in September 2011 for giving recognition to the Palestinian state.
Netanyahu also addressed the AIPAC conference. In his address, the Israeli Prime Minister said that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to his country for security reasons. He had again referred to the Jewish settlements in the Bibal area. And it is needless to mention that the address of Netanyahu was welcome amid repeated clapping from the audience. Netanyahu has again demanded that as a condition for establishing peace Israel must have to be recognized as a Jewish state. His proposal means forfeiting the birth right of the Palestinians, expelled from Israel, in returning to their homeland, which the United Nations accepted for many times. The proposal will give Israel the liberty of expelling nearly 2 million Palestinian from that country. The Palestinian will accept the proposal.
On 24 May, Netanyahu was more cordially greeted in the joint session of the two houses of the US Congress than the AIPAC conference. During his address to the House, both the Republican and Democrat members of the Congress gave him standing ovation 18 times. By this time, Obama and Netanyahu held face to face meeting in the White House. According to available information, their discussions were exciting and bad tempered.
Split in Western Alliance
However, Obama was given rousing receptions during his visit to Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. He earned the rare distinction of addressing the joint session of the British Parliament in Westminster Hall. Before him no US President was fortunate to address the joint session of the British Parliament. In his address, Obama traditionally raised the Palestinian issue and said: 'We (US and Europe) are united for cause a secured Israel and an Independent Palestinian state.
But Obama knows it better that the Europe is now not united with the United States on the Palestinian issue. Virtually Europe is getting more intolerant with each passing. So long the Arab-Israel issue has been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It was true that a quartet was formed on the issue comprising the United Nations, EU, Russia, and the United States. But that quartet was absolutely ineffective. Former US President George W. Bush appointed his cohort in misdeeds -- Tony Blair -- as the representative of that quartet. It seemed from the statements of Tony Blair that protecting interest of Israel was his prime concern. He is going to Jerusalem off and on and Israelis are receiving him very cordially. It being heard that Tony Blair has been benefiting for her relations with Israel.
Now the EU could have realized that the US foreign policy is determined in Tel Aviv, not Washington. And as a result, no just solution of the crisis is possible by the United States. Some of the EU countries believe the Europe now will have to take responsibility from the United States the initiatives of solving the Arab-Israel crisis. Some of the EU countries, including France, have hinted that they are ready to recognize the independence of Palestine if it is unilaterally declared by the Palestinians.
The Europe has some special advantages also. The Israeli lobbies are very active in Europe particularly in France and Germany. But they are yet to become so stronger like the AIPAC in the United States. In addition, the progress of Israeli economy still largely depends on Europe. Israel is enjoying the duty free access to Europe in exporting goods like other EU members. That means Israeli Prime Minister will find no courage to show his red eyes to the Europe the way he has been demonstrating his audacity to hackle the US President. Under the above circumstances, the people, who support an independent Palestinian state inside Israel, will be encouraged.
Recent Development
Meanwhile, a significant change has taken place in the situation of the Middle East. Israel has been successful in laying a siege to Gaza for long four years with active support from the Hosni Mubarak government of Egypt. That the Egyptian Government acting on behalf of the Israeli Administration has closed down the Rafa Crossing on the southern frontier. But a post-revolution Egypt is not ready to act as a guard of Egypt. Egypt opened the Rafa Crossing on 28 May. Most countries in the Middle East are now witnessing mass upsurge. The friends of Israel in Europe believe Israel will be more friendless if 'Arab Autumn' gets perfection. Under the above circumstances, it will be better for Israel to reach a settlement without killing time.
The Arab League, at a meeting in Doha on 22 May, has decided that despite objection from the US they will move a resolution in the UN General Assembly in September for giving recognition to an independent Palestinian state with the border of 1967. That resolution will create very complex situation for the United States. Under pressure from Israel, the United States will try to oppose the resolution. However, most countries in the world are likely to give recognition to the Palestinian state. The public opposition of so many countries will surely hamper the international dignity of the United States.
Only one option has been left for Washington to adopt. The option is supporting the Arab League resolution. If the United States fails, Washington should abstain from voting against the proposal and handover initiatives of resolving the Middle East crisis to the EU.

Muslim World Needs Formation of Islamic Bloc

Jews have got a strong presence in the political, economic, and administrative positions of the world superpower, the United States. After the United States, the followers of the Jewish religion and Jewish bankers are moving quickly toward capturing Europe and taking it in their control. This has become evident in the elections in the European Union (EU) for the presidential and ministerial posts. The global agenda of Jews could not have been achieved with the help of one Western country. So, they planned to use the whole of Europe. The Jewish lobbies have an evil idea, which plans to convert the EU into an allied state like the former Soviet Union. In this regard, the Lisbon Treaty was also extended, so that the foreign and economic policy law and regulations come under the control of Jews. The elections of the EU took place in Brussels on 9 November, but the results shocked everyone. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated by an unknown Belgian leader Rompuy in the EU presidential elections. The 27 leaders of the EU elected Rompuy for a two-year term. Tony Blair was considered an extremely strong candidate. He used to represent Britain in the different meetings of the EU.

Economic and Monetary Reforms
The defeat of Blair in the elections led to grief among the British people. This would have also happened that differences would have erupted between the United Kingdom and EU. So, in order to address this problem, the magicians of the EU gave the second most powerful post in the EU to the United Kingdom. The British woman political leader Ashton has been made the foreign minister of the EU. After winning the presidential race, Rompuy stated that if unity was our strength, difference within us was our money. Ashton stated that she was proud of her victory. Rompuy does not have any high political stature or profile in the world. He remained the Belgian prime minister for a short time. Corruption and money looting charges against him circulated in the media with great intensity during his tenure. The close associates of Rompuy stated that in order to lengthen his tenure he used to bribe his cabinet members. The economic and monetary reforms that took place in Belgium and other European small countries were spearheaded by Rompuy. The European people, although did not benefit from all these pacts or reforms, the Jewish bankers and investors were able to earn a windfall.
Rompuy is considered to be a reputable champion for making deals. He is considered to be the front man of the Jewish bankers and investors. According to the Jerusalem Post, the election of Rompuy for the presidential post was given tacit support by the Jewish lobby. Prior to the Lisbon treaty, the European leaders were actively participating in the election campaign, so that the whole of Europe backs the Soviet Union, which can work for the benefit of Europe in the world. After the extension of the Lisbon treaty, the president of the EU is the most powerful man in the continent. Before the approval of the Lisbon Treaty, the president of the EU was elected for a six-month period and had a mere rubber stamp status. Now, the president is the don of Europe and will have 5,000 employees working for him. In addition, he will have billions of dollars at his/her disposal.

Europe at International Scenario
The United States was hoping to see Tony Blair as the president, but Germany and France did not support Blair. Instead, Sarkozy and Merkel supported Rompuy for the president post. On the 20th year celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the victory of Rompuy was decided and he also stated that he was aware of his possible victory prior to the elections. The secretary of state of the EU, Lord Mendelson, has stated that the election of Rompuy has dented the honor of the EU.
According to the analysis by Al-Jazeera, the United States and other world leaders have criticized the European leaders for the election of Rompuy as the president. The head of the global policy institute took out his anger in a recent interview by stating that the EU presidential election was disappointing. Rompuy while stating his priorities presented this thought provoking statement that Europe is far superior area than the United States in the economic field. The Europeans in support of the Americans have played a role a dozen times, but there is no importance of Europe at the international scenario.

Demand of Situation
France, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Geneva, and Britain pin the success of Sweden to a formal and structured banking system, which is owned by Jews. In the past, the Jewish lobby has been achieving its objectives in Europe by forcing the European countries. Now, the policymakers of Europe will all be Jews. It is also being said that instead of Russia and China facing the United States, it will Europe standing up against the United States in the future. The defeat of Blair is the product of global Jewish plans. This fact is also certain that the new safeguard of Jewish interests will be Europe. The elections of the EU serve as an example to emulate for the 57 Muslim countries.
If seven countries, which have been at loggerheads with each other for past centuries and have committed violence and murder against the citizens of their opposing countries, can forget their animosity to stand united on the platform of the EU. Then, why do the 57 Muslim countries feel a hindrance in uniting under the banner of an Islamic Union of the Muslim community. I should remember that until the time Muslims unite they will have to continue to face this oppression and tyranny. The Jews and the Christians, equipped with stinger missiles and high-tech weapons, would continue to kill thousands of people in Iraq.