Introduction
A survey conducted in 2006 in Britain indicated that the majority of people believe that the world is losing the war on terror. This survey should have been a wake up call to the United States. The Bush Administration could have been made aware that it was using the wrong strategy to fight terrorism. Terrorism cannot be defeated through the use of force alone. We cannot eradicate terrorism without worldwide unity from political, social and religious standpoints. By addressing these three issues, analysts believe that the fight towards the eradication of terrorism would be worn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/aug/17/foreignpolicy.uk ).
Main Text
A look at the origin of the largest terrorist groups in the world indicates that their most important objective is to seek solutions to a political stalemate. These groups believe that certain political injustices have been committed against them and they should be addressed. The Palestine Liberation Organization was formed with a broad intention of addressing the obvious injustices meted out against them in the Middle East. The disputes between Palestine and Israel are being resolved through a political process. Terrorist groups and political parties espouse the same ideals of change, the main difference being their tactics towards achieving this. While political parties push for their agenda through compromises, lobbying and political representation, terrorists groups go further and are ready to wage violent attacks against the aggressors and establishments to force them make concessions (William E. Messenger, 34).
They are entangled in the same maddening pursuit of power and influence just like the politicians. It is only that the means of getting it may seem unconventional. Deep down, the cause of the aggression and hostility exhibited by the Hamas is because they would want to entrench themselves in a position of power to probably address their grievances. Terrorist organizations usually lack the financial and logistical muscle to get to power through the conventional means. So they resort to making attacks against the civilians to instill fear and drive their point home.
Politicians have resorted to fighting terrorism with military strikes. The term terrorist is being used worldwide to brand groups that are considered the enemy of the existing establishment. This is not resolving the underlying issue, which are political. The misdiagnosis of the problem is leading to maltreatment and if this is not correct, respite is nowhere near. Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist and the African national union in South Africa, a terrorist group. Mau Mau in Kenya was regarded by the British to be terrorist organization. These two groups were simply trying to fight against colonial and racist establishments. They lacked in financial and tactical resources and guerilla warfare was the only way out (Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner, 19).
Serbia fought the Turks and Vietnamese fought the French in the 19th century for the same reasons, injustices. Terrorists might be using uncondonable means but it does not mean they don’t have a point. The only way that such groups may be eradicated is through a political solution. Dropping bombs may end up killing innocent lives and further aggravating the group’s grievances. Addressing historical injustices that are the root to such anger and resentment can curb terrorism. It is all about fine-tuning the sates policies and equitable distribution of resources. It is all about making concessions and compromises to bring on board a minority group that may have been left out in sharing the national cake (Hoffman, Bruce, 32).
There are quite a number of terrorist groups whose extremism is fueled by social issues rather than the mere pursuit of power and resources. These are people that may use extreme means to try and bring the attention of the world towards addressing some social injustices. These may range from ethnicity, homophobia, and racism. Others just want to impose their cultural and social values upon others. In the Middle East for example, there are many terrorist groups that are waging war against the western nations in the belief that the western culture has eroded the traditional values and morals of the societies. The Taliban for example introduced Sharia law and banned all manner of western lifestyles ranging from music and dressing. Others go ahead and take extreme measures by attacking certain groups of people just because they are either considered to be of a superior or inferior social class, race or tribe.
Cultural, racial and ethnic differences may become a huge source of grievances especially where one is thought of being dominating and overbearing. There are those that target their victims because they believe they are white, black or Asian. Military action against such terrorist organizations would be the least of the solution. This would be healed by massive education of the public, orienting such groups towards cohesion and integrating it with the rest of the society (Laqueur, Walter, 46).
Of the most divisive factors in the society, nothing divides in much more than religion. The seventeenth century was characterized by senseless killing of people on the basis of their religious affiliation. Some form of terrorism in today’s world stems from such differences in religious beliefs. Religious terrorism is fuelled by emotional motivations and the belief that ones religion is the best. The perpetrators of such terrorism have been made to believe that their religion is much more superior to others and its their right to spread its ideals to others even if it means using force (Kochler Hans, 35).
The Jihadists and the crusaders are a good example of this. The perpetrators of religious terrorism use their respective holy books to justify their actions. They use it to spread stereotype beliefs and brainwash their followers by focusing on the perceived benefits of those who comply and the wrath of failing to heed to their teachings. The motivation behind Christian terrorism for example stems from a lopsided interpretation of the Christian bible, using it to justify violent acts against the non-believers. The rationale behind Christian terrorism, or any other act of terrorism is to terrify and publicize such acts to create a feeling of fear to those opposed to the respective religions teachings. This is in the belief that it is their religious duty to convert and spread the religion (Terry Nardin, 17).
The leaders of such groups are revered and are believed to be above reproach. The followers do not question their acts. Jihadists believe that their acts are justified and often cite the Quran for support. Such acts are not carried out by the whole religious grouping but rather by a few extremists who believe their rewards lie in heaven. Religious terrorism is a threat to the peaceful co-existence of people in the society. It leads to stereotypes and prejudices. The Bush administration has been accused of fueling hatred against the Muslims in the United States. The war against terror has mainly focused on the Islamic states creating an informed perception that all Muslims are terrorists.
Conclusion
This paper has established the fact that terrorism stems from a number of issues and perceived grievances. It also takes a variety of forms that are distinctly motivated; these are political, social and religious.
It has been noted the world is trying to grapple with the increased terrorism and initiate efforts to eradicate it, it is important to note that this is a problem that requires a multifaceted approach that should also seek to unearth the underlying issues and their motivation. The United States might be wrong in its one-sided approach to fighting terrorism. fanaticism and terrorism cannot be defeated through militarism as the members are strongly convinced of their righteousness, it can only be eradicated through a religious approach urging the extremists to tone down their rhetoric’s and hostility. Terrorism in large requires a well-calculated approach that should seek to focus at the motivation behind it and employing effort to address them. Bombs cannot stop terrorism, addressing the perceived injustices would do a great deal. This paper has noted that fighting terrorists without tackling the specific causes of the different forms will not help eradicate but will rather aggravate the situation. All the stakeholders in the various fields ranging from religious and political must be brought on board if such a war is to be won.
Works cited
William E. Messenger, Jan de Bruyn, Judy Brown and Ramona Montagnes. The Canadian Writers Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2007,34.
Terry Nardin. Review of Terror in the Mind of God. The Journal of Politics 64.Southern Political Science Association. 2001,17.
Kochler Hans. Terrorism and National Liberation. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Question of Terrorism. Frankfurt a. M. /Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1988,35.
Laqueur, Walter. No End to War – Terrorism in the 21st century, New York, 2003,46.
Sunga, Lyal S.US, Anti-Terrorism Policy and Asia’s Options, in Johannen, Smith and Gomez, (eds.) September 11& Political Freedoms: Asian Perspectives.
Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner. Terrorism: essential primary sources. Thomson Gale. 2006, 19.
Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press 1998; 32.
Oliver King. Majority Believe West is losing on ‘War on Terror’.Guardian.co.uk, 2006. Web.