An Eye for an Eye Will Leave the Entire World Blind; Human Rights in the International War on Terror.
The intent of this blog post is to re-theorize how we view terrorism in Western nations by deconstructing the origin of the War on Terror and the traditional understanding of terrorism. In my next blog, scheduled for April 10th, I will contrast the arguments made in this post with the ongoing Israeli genocide in Palestine being committed under the guise of fighting terrorism.
“Mohammaed Mahdi, who lost his foot in a mine explosion, waits for a Red Cross doctor at his home in Kabul in August 2004. This photo was taken by Associated Press photographer Emilio Morenatti, who five years later lost part of his leg when the armored vehicle he was in hit a roadside bomb.” Emilio Morenatti/AP
Many of us have heard the famous saying, “an eye for an eye will leave the entire world blind,” as it's frequently referred to by the pacifists and human rights activists alike. It was just after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, when former US President George Bush coined the new global counterterrorism operation, the “War on Terror.” Just ten days after the attack when speaking to the American people, he said, "The attack took place on American soil, but it was an attack on the heart and soul of the civilized world. And the world has come together to fight a new and different war, the first, and we hope the only one, of the 21st century. A war against all those who seek to export terror, and a war against those governments that support or shelter them."
In many ways, he was correct - the so-called “civilized world,” which he meant in reference to the Western world, has indeed come together to fight their proclaimed terrorist groups, and this has continued from 2001 until now, 23 years later. There were already many problems with his claims then though.
Firstly; he conflates the Western world with being civilized. This could not be further from reality. The Western, “civilized world” was born and built on colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and the genocide of indigenous people. The United States and United Kingdom still have colonies today, named “overseas territories.” Albeit, these territories do have more rights over themselves than in the recent past, but the road to sovereignty is a long one; one that may present even more challenges for their citizens than simply remaining in the tight grasp of their colonial past and occupier.
Secondly, he states that this was on “all those who seek to export terror.” Using words such as export implies that this is not a Western phenomenon; that terrorism is inherently non-Western. Given the circumstances of September 11th, there is no doubt he was implying that terrorism is an “export” of the Middle East, and of Muslims specifically. Possibly this retrospective hindsight is too harsh on Bush, it is true that in recent years we have now seen the rise in homegrown and political terrorism unlike that of his presidency.
However this brings me to my next argument, and my main concern with the “War on Terror.”
That is, the way in which we define terrorism, both academically and in practice, is very faulty. My understanding of the traditional definition of terrorism, having studied it and written case reports on different groups, is this:
Terrorism is the act of inciting terror to a large number of individuals; civilians or government officials, in order to achieve specific political change. However, what defines ‘terror’ is also very specific, it must be physically damaging, causing death or grave injuries, or psychologically damaging, such as witnessing these horrific acts. By this definition, September 11th is still the largest terrorist attack in modern history, and deserves this recognition.
However I find that there's one major issue with this traditional understanding of terrorism. That is, it limits terrorism to acts that can only be committed by civilians. In traditional teachings of terrorism, it looks at acts committed against the state, yet neglects the state as a potential perpetrator of such acts themselves. It has only been until recent years that the term “state terrorism,” has gained recognition in academic and international discourse, and even now, it's a paragraph in what deserves chapters.
And what is the effect of this?
Numerous counter-terrorism operations are being committed under the guise of fighting the “War on Terror,” and in ways that result in the loss of more civilian casualties than the terror acts themselves. Let's look at and deconstruct the most infamous example from the origin of the War on Terror, when America sent troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda in retaliation to September 11th.
On September 11th, 2001, Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial planes and targeted famous American landmarks: the two twin World Trade Center towers in NYC, the Pentagon, and the White House. There were an estimated 2,977 casualties, the majority from the towers comprising 97 different nationalities. This has gone down as an infamous day in history for terrorism studies, international politics, and human rights advocacy. It was seen not as much an attack on the United States, but as an attack on the West, on “civilized societies.”
The United States responded by sending US troops to Afghanistan in what was called “Operation Enduring Freedom,” freedom not just for Americans and for the West, but also freedom for those in the Middle East who live under oppressive terrorist rule. The United States, while surely the most obvious target and victim of September 11th, used this tragedy to become a white world savior.
What were the casualties that resulted from the US sending troops into the Middle East? Much, much higher than that of September 11th, for both civilians in the region and our own military.
The Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University conducted a Cost of War Project, aimed at gathering statistics on post 9/11 wars, found the following:
Over 940,000 people have died in the post-9/11 wars due to direct war violence.
An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.
Over 432,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting.
38 million — the number of war refugees and displaced persons.
The U.S. federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $8 trillion.
The U.S. government is conducting counterterror activities in 78 countries.
At least four times as many active duty personnel and war veterans of post-9/11 conflicts have died of suicide than in combat.
More than 7.6 million children under five in post-9/11 war zones are suffering from acute malnutrition
The wars have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the U.S. and abroad.
This, of course, does not minimize the lives of those 2,977 victims who lost their lives on September 11th. It was a horrific, terrorist act, that deserved swift and serious accountability. However, there is nothing that can justify almost half a million civilians dying as a result of US retaliation.
And this is still just the beginning. The War on Terror is very much still alive, indeed the threat of terrorism is still very much alive as well. However, if you ask the 38 million people who lost their homes and were forced to leave their homeland who the terrorists are, their list would not end with Al-Qaeda alone. If you ask the 7.6 million children why their family does not have enough food to feed them, their answer will not be the War on Terror. Because regardless of the conflict or military operation, human rights must be protected. There is no retaliation, no justice to be served when more children are dying during war than the reason for war in the first place.
The Watson Institute further explains these statistics, “People living in the war zones have been killed in their homes, in markets, and on roadways. They have been killed by bombs, bullets, fire, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and drones. Civilians die at checkpoints, as they are run off the road by military vehicles, when they step on mines or cluster bombs, as they collect wood or tend to their fields, and when they are kidnapped and executed for purposes of revenge or intimidation. They are killed by the United States, by its allies, and by insurgents and sectarians in the civil wars spawned by the invasions.”
The fight against terrorism is real and necessary, but the phenomenon named the War on Terror, is not the way to fight it. You cannot fight terrorism with terrorism, it will leave the world blind. This brings me back to my original issue with the traditional definitions of terrorism. The War on Terror is not seen as terrorism itself because of two reasons.
It was provoked. September 11th demanded accountability, as any serious violation of human rights should.
More importantly, it was being committed not just by a state, but by multiple states. Due to Bush’s clear and intentional framing of the War on Terror as a war to protect “civilized societies,” such as the West, it was easy to garner support from allies who assisted the United States in such post 9/11 wars and counterterrorism operations.
This leads us to the present. Just three years ago in 2021, current US President Joe Biden pulled US troops out of Afghanistan. What has resulted is intense criticize from both parties within the US, both on the act of withdrawing troops and the manner in which is was conducted (which was very hastily and disorganized).
PEW Research found in 2022, “at the time of the military evacuation, 54% of Americans said the decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan was the right one, There was a sharp partisan divide on this topic. In the same survey, 69% of U.S. adults said the United States mostly failed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan. 55% of Americans said that defending against terrorism should (still) be a top priority for the president and Congress to address this year.”
The threat of terrorism has become deeply engrained in American politics since September 11th, even the operation name “Enduring Freedom,” has implied that terrorism is a direct threat to American civic values of freedom and democracy.
However, as one begins to see some light that maybe the War on Terror would subside, Biden withdraws US troops from Afghanistan only to fund another War on Terror. That is, of course, the Israeli genocide in Palestine. Where I have noticed much more blatant human rights violations, including direct targeting of children and civilians, targeting of hospitals, refugee camps, aid distribution centers. Furthermore, intentional famine, indiscriminate bombing, and no regard for international humanitarian law.
On April 10th, I’ve scheduled the second part to this post, where I’ll explain how Israel has been able to manipulate the War on Terror phenomenon to intentionally terrorize Palestinians for political motives. Additionally, I’ll argue how this presents a major threat to the international human rights and humanitarian system: which is the precedent Israel is setting in regards to acting with impunity and being allowed to investigate themselves for their own war crimes and violations. Lastly, highlighting the important of recognizing and speaking out on human rights violations as they are occurring: stressing the importance of not treating tragedies as retrospective hindsight but instead treating them as what they are: grave violations of human rights that deserve justice and accountability.
