The war on terror
By
Naguib Mahfouz
The explosions we've heard of in Turkey and Iraq, and those to be expected in several other countries, all targeting American and British interests, will inevitably give rise to an important question: if such operations persist so long after 11 September, what has this much talked about war on terrorism actually achieved? That war, after all, provided Washington with its pretext for invading Afghanistan, then Iraq, and occupying both countries.
Yet the situation that existed prior to this costly and destabilising war -- one in which American embassies were being blown up in Africa -- continues in much the same way. What, then, has been the purpose of this American-led war?
It is a question that begs other, perhaps more pressing, questions. We must ask ourselves, above all, whether it is remotely credible that military campaigns of the sort currently being promoted by the US administration can ever be effective in combating terrorism. Just what is the reasoning behind the policies currently being promoted by the hawks that appear to have hi-jacked the current US administration? And is it ever sensible to respond to violence with ever greater violence without at the same time addressing the root causes of that violence? My concern is that the war on terror, rather than putting an end to terrorist operations, will actually perpetuate them, giving rise to ever more violence throughout the world.
Based on an interview by Mohamed Salmawy.
