“Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” – April 2006. The above article released by National Intelligence Estimate, has within its course numerous instances of evidence not supporting the fact that the military activity in Iraq has proved successful. Yet there are even more backlashes with regards to the United States decision to remain in Iraq. We will discuss these implications in the first part of this essay.
The opening of the article states that United States activity has “seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations…”(NIE, 2006). It further ascertains that although damage has been done to al-Qa’ida, they will still pose a threat to the US cause in Iraq and possibly the US itself. Evident and also established in this paper is the fact that al-Qa’ida and it jihad affiliates are adapting to the counterterrorist measures (Ibid.).With regard also to the increase of dispersion of Muslim fundamentalists the paper states the following:
“If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.” (NIE, 2006). This does not bode well for anti-terrorist operations in the US or other allies. However military action expects to suppress further growth of al-Qa’ida supporting groups through constant pressure and prosecution of terrorist organizations. The problem appears to be in this report, that even though stringent measures have been taken to undermine insurgents in Iraq and other al-Qa’ida supporting units, they appear to be growing with some form of insidious malignancy.
The NIE report also states that Europe, including previous victims of terror, Spain, are seen as possible and likely targets for fundamentalist activity. The US attempt at peace keeping in Iraq, therefore cannot be seen to be successful insomuch as it has brought about increased al-Qa’ida activity rather than subduing it. Democracy, unfortunately, as seen in this case is not supported by all sectors of the Iraqi government, and although assumed to be a minority fundamentalist movement, al-Qa’ida holds sway primarily due to its terrorist actions. Where the United States and UN corps have ethical standards, such as the upholding of the safety non-insurgent civilians, terrorist organizations have little interest in protecting innocent civilians. September 11 2001, is a perfect example of the difference between the two parties involved in this conflict.
In The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution, Bernard Mayer observed that we “…often have a difficult time distinguishing the impact of culture from the dynamics of dominance.”
In the second part of this essay, we will examine the cultural differences that face peace-keeping parties in countries that are culturally different and how mediation seeks to understand both sides of the argument in order to reach a peaceful solution.
Islam is perhaps one of the oldest religious groups (along with Judaism), that the modern world knows. Attempting to change these belief structures could be seen to be unfair and unjustified in the same manner as not attempting to understand Western culture is. In fact the previous analysis relates the importance of dealing with matters in a peaceful manner rather than using military actions. Bernard Mayer describes conflict as having a myriad of facets, including the following: Conflict as a Perception; as Feeling and Conflict as Action.1
In this case there appears to be conflict on all three fronts. Social groups and cultures fight to keep their beliefs and may perceive interference as a threat to the old beliefs they have held onto. The death of Saddam Hussein, for instance, was merely the tip of an iceberg that is more established and grounded than can be realised. In successful conflict resolution it is necessary for both parties to assist in the process. Both parties must be assessed with regards to the reasons for the conflict.
A mediator, amongst other aspects needs to listen emphatically, hearing both conflicting ideas and has to have a neutral, non-biased with regards to both sides. Both sides also have to be dedicated to finding a peaceful solution to conflict. It is not possible to find peaceful solution without both parties being committed to it. This is a major problem because as with the case of al-Qa’ida, they may not want to reach a compromise.
To conclude, there are several reasons why military action may have been necessary, including the fact that alternative conflict resolution may not have been an option. However, military action has increased the activity of al-Qa’ida insurgents not only in the US but also in Europe.
Sources
Mayer, B. The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioners Guide. Chapter 1: The Nature of Conflict. Web.
National Intelligence Estimate. Declassified Key Judgments of National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for The United States”. 2006. Web.
Footnotes
- Bernard Mayer: The Nature of Conflict. Web.