Name Game

What are we fighting for, really?

Last week, as the fifth anniversary of the attacks in New York and Washington faded to the background and memories were packed away for another year, a shooting incident at a college in downtown Montreal (Canada) left one person dead and 19 people wounded. This tragic event, coming a few days after the 9/11 anniversary, clearly exemplifies the faulty concept behind the misnomer of a "war on terror". Although the mainstream media was quick to point out that what happened in Montreal was not a terror incident, for those who suffered through it all the difference between one form of violence and the other is mere semantics.

Along these lines, it can be seen how ill-conceived the notion of the "war on terror" really is, akin to the elderly George Bush's failed attempt to fight a "war on drugs". The present "war on something" is nothing more than a convenient phrase that reduces complex issues into a neat, simple framework. As a result, it creates an illusion that somehow a "victory" of sorts can be achieved against what can otherwise be considered a universal axiom.

Above all this, however, the problem with such grandiose struggles to rid society or humanity of an enigma is that it's invariably a never ending process. In the case of terrorism, there is no concrete enemy which can be measured in terms of size or strength. Thus, it's impossible to ascertain when victory has been achieved, if ever at all.

Nonetheless, the reason why Bush and other leading political figures use such a vague concept is quite obvious: it conceals the true motive behind several foreign policy actions (i.e., brute military interventions) and the use of restrictive domestic policies (such as the increased power of the police and use of surveillance) which otherwise would not be accepted nor tolerated by civil society.

The only problem is that the war on terror itself is in a very fluid state. Since it was first declared five years ago, the objectives and targets have repeatedly changed. First and foremost it was to hunt down and capture (or kill) Osama bin Laden, the perceived mastermind of a global terror network. He and his organisation were cast as a threat not only to the US but to all of mankind. Next on the list was Saddam Hussein, with his supposed weapons of mass destruction and his connections with the al-Qaeda network.

As new purposes for the war on terror keep developing, Bush et al have been careful to not explicitly link the notion of a war on terror with Huntington's infamous "clash of civilizations" thesis, although it's clear that the two are one and the same. However, with the latest makeover for the war on terror, when it was cast this past summer as a struggle against Islamic fascists (the word fascist indubitably used to draw sympathy to Israel's aggression in Lebanon during the same period), the link with Huntington has become much more obvious.

The difference between the terror caused by individuals with a grudge against society and a group of committed ideological extremists

The fact that the notion of the "war on terror" and the reasons for the war in Iraq keep changing are proof in themselves that the increased use of surveillance and the powers of the police at home -- along with the use of the military abroad -- are based on arbitrary notions to suit the whims of political leaders. In essence, this authoritarian use of power as a means of law and order is a common characteristic of dictatorships.

The problem with this, among other things, is that too much attention is being diverted from local issues and concerns. This doesn't mean if the war on terror didn't exist that what happened in Montreal last week wouldn't have happened. Indeed, while such an incident is something that is usually expected to take place south of the border, Montreal is no stranger to such violence. In 1989 a similar shooting incident at another school left over a dozen female students dead and scores wounded.

Nor is a place like Montreal immune from political violence, as the October Crisis of 1970 clearly exemplifies. Ironically, the way in which the Canadian government handled the situation then is not that different to the way in which the present war on terror is being waged now. Then, as now, an extremely violent incident was hijacked for ulterior, political motives.

The fact that extreme violence on a local level is still prevalent doesn't mean that what is lacking is more law and order in the form of increased police powers and more pervasive surveillance. Rather, the problem is that the war on terror has instilled within society a feeling of fear and trepidation, to the extent that a college shooting spree ends up having a much bigger impact. Furthermore, the search for causes and solutions are now often muddled because of the security and policy concerns associated with the war on terror.

The difference between the terror caused by individuals with a grudge against society and a group of committed ideological extremists is not simply a moot point of where to draw the line. The Oklahoma bombing is a case in point: how would that incident have fit in with the concept of the war on terror if it had taken place after 9/11? And what about the decades of terror perpetuated by the Unabomber?

The London bombings of last year provide a perfect example of how the dividing lines between different forms of terror can become blurred. In the case of the individuals involved, they appeared to have some kind of grudge against society based on the failure to address key social and ethnic issues. At the same time, there was an obvious political motive behind the attacks, one fuelled by an ideological commitment of some sort.

At this point, what is of concern is whether such a convergence between personal and political violence is likely to increase as time goes on. Ultimately, the prime objective of the war on terror is to make society safe against feelings of fear and consternation. However, it's all the same whether it's terror propagated by foreign extremists to advance a geo-political ideology or whether it's a local person with a personal grudge against society; terror is terror, whatever the source or motivation.