TERROR TECHNIQUES CREATE TERROR

Some of the counter terror techniques being used by the US have not only seriously damaged America’s image in the world but may also be fuelling terror.
Most studies on terrorism confirm that terrorists thrive on propaganda to fill their ranks and are most successful when they can get a democracy to over-react and to set aside principles of justice that support the very fabric of democracy. So far, the Bush administration has handed Al Qaeda and other insurgents the propaganda they need to portray America as a country willing to abandon the Geneva Conventions, to abuse prisoners in its custody and to hand over suspects to countries that use torture - to countries like Syria that the US publicly denounces as a supporter of terror.
When US terror tactics are condemned by human rights groups throughout the world, as well as by the Council of Europe, leading European parliamentarians and British Law Lords, terrorists rub their hands with glee. They are being handed a propaganda victory because those international condemnations call into doubt the mortal authority of the US to wage war and to portray itself as the defender of justice and liberty.
The questions many people tend to ask is how this has happened and how can it continue to happen. The answer lies in the failure of the Bush administration to understand that, even in this new form of warfare being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, America must abide by the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and be circumspect about the way its uses its extraordinary military might. Vietnam was an example of how not to wage war but many of the lessons of that period were consigned to history. That changed recently when General Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran and former Secretary of State, warned the Bush administration against modifying Article 3 of the Geneva Accords.
Powell knows that the present conflicts, including what the White House calls “the war on terror,” are not new forms of warfare. Terrorism has always been with us but now terrorists are better armed and much more dangerous, as Al Qaeda proved on September 11. But, as with all terrorist conflicts, the dangers for society lie in over-reaction – the kind of over reaction that makes an enemy of the civilian population, thereby providing the terrorists with support and cover.
The British Army's over reaction in Northern Ireland in 1970-71 was a case in point. In July of 1970, the British military launched what British generals later called a crude operation. It involved sealing off a Catholic area for over two days, using large numbers of troops. Civilians were killed, property was damaged and the Catholic population turned against the British. That was followed by internment without trial during which a special unit of British military intelligence, without British Cabinet approval, conducted secret interrogations of selected detainees. The detainees were subjected to stress positions and periods of white noise. They had hood placed over their heads and were dropped from helicopters hovering above the ground. They were also slapped and beaten and held incognito. A decade later, the European Court of Human Rights condemned their treatment. The real damage however was to British policy in Ireland. The emerging Provisional IRA exploited the torture of the men to depict the British as a cruel enemy. In so doing, the Provisionals filled their ranks and so began a long war that ended decades later.
Recently, Senator John Mc Cain revealed that he had spoken to a British General about the failure of the interrogations tactics used in N. Ireland. Sen. Mc Cain made the point that the techniques used by the British were exactly those the CIA was using and that the Bush administration wanted legal cover for them. Stephen Hadley, the president’s national security adviser refused to confirm that those were indeed the techniques. He made the rather silly point that he could not publicly discuss the interrogation techniques. To do so, he said, would help the enemy develop new anti-interrogation measures. That statement highlighted the utter naivety of men like Hadley. Someone should have told him that terrorists watch television and read newspapers like the rest of us. If they don’t know by now the tactics the CIA and others use in Guantanamo and in secret CIA prisons, they must be living in cloud cuckoo land. But, as we all know only too well, terrorists are not that dumb.
If one applies the N. Ireland model to the present war on terror, which is taking place on a massive scale, one can see how this White House has got its tactics so badly wrong. Since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people have been arrested and held for questioning. Some have remained in custody for months and even years, the majority of them without ever being charged with an offense. Why that has happened, you may ask. The answer can be found in a study of British counter terror tactics in Kenya, Aden, Cyprus and N. Ireland. Big arrests operations of the kind used in those countries have since been employed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were then, as they are now, programs to screen large sections of the male population. In 2004 alone, the US released over 18,000 Iraqis without charge and as 14,000 may still be held in detention centers. In Iraq particularly, the screening process has been so huge it is has led to prisoner abuse and prisoner deaths. Little, however, is known about the true scope of the screening in Afghanistan or the state of the prisons there. The effect of mass arrests and the harsh treatment of detainees is that each man arrested may not become a terrorist but he will see the US as the enemy. He will, therefore, be more likely to support insurgents. Widespread arrests also alienate the civilian population.
But, the US also shoots itself in the foot with other parts of its counter terror strategy. The CIA’s rendition policy, Guantanamo and the US military’s excessive use of force, which has led to large numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, have proved counterproductive. They have drawn global criticism and alienated Muslims across the globe. It would not be surprising if some of those Muslims have reacted by contributing financially to the coffers of organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas Al Qaeda or by joining terror groups.
Many of the neoconservatives who shaped the bogus agenda for the war in Iraq and the war on terror were impressed by the way the Israelis combated terror. As a result, they recommended the US should adopt similar policies. They failed to see that Israel has achieved little using crude tactics. Israel believes in the excessive use of force, even if it means terrorizing its neighbors and killing children, but most of its military adventures, such as the recent invasion of Lebanon, have been counterproductive. It sucked the US into the Lebanon crisis and only succeeded in making more enemies and strengthening Hezbollah. In the last days of the war, it fired US-supplied cluster weapons into civilian areas of Lebanon, leaving 350,000 cluster bomb droplets. Children and adults are being killed by those droplets on a daily basis. It also used phosphorous weapons. The outcome is that not only Israel stands accused of war crimes but also America for supplying those weapons and giving Israelis a green light to use them.
Until this White House takes a cold, calculated look at its counter terror strategies America will continue to accumulate enemies and subject itself to international ridicule. If this White House cannot listen to men like Sen. John Mc Cain and General Colin Powell who fought America’s enemies on the battlefield there is little chance we will win the war on terror.