Written by Andrew Parker   

13 years ago today, at approximately 2:00pm GMT, I was sweeping my kitchen with the radio playing in the background when a news story broke: "News just in from the United States. A plane has crashed into the World Trade Centre Building in New York. More on that breaking story when we have it." I assumed it was an accident caused by a light aircraft whose pilot had flown too close to the New York skyline and lost control. I finished sweeping and went into the Living Room to put on the TV News. At first sight the plume of smoke rising from the North Tower chilled my blood and I realised that this was no light aircraft. Within a minute of putting on the TV, I watched live as the second aircraft crashed into the South Tower. I continued to watch the news as a third hijacked plane was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth plane was reported to have crashed into a Pennsylvania field en route to Washington D.C..
To indirectly quote wartime President Franklin D. Roosevelt, September 11th 2001 is "a date which will live in infamy", but the following 13 years and 'The War on Terror' that has followed has prompted me to write this article and call it, 'The War OF Terror'.
It is a little known fact that the label, 'The War on Terror', actually pre-dates 9/11 by some 20 years and was first uttered by Ronald Reagan shortly after becoming US President. It is no coincidence that 'The War on Terror' coincides with the birth of neo-liberalism.
The Reagan Administration came into office announcing that a primary concern of US foreign policy would be a “war on terror,” particularly state-supported international terrorism, the most virulent form of the plague spread by “depraved opponents of civilization itself” in “a return to barbarism in the modern age,” in the words of the Administration moderate George Shultz. The war to eradicate the plague was to focus on two regions where it was raging with unusual virulence: Central America and West Asia/North Africa. This concern has continued to the present day and lead to the first Iraq War in 1991.
On September 11th 2001 Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi national, and his militant Islamic extremist group, Al-Qaeda, were quick to take responsibility for the attack. Many of the hijackers were also Saudi nationals. But it was not Saudi Arabia that the US set its wrath upon. The Saudis are long-time oil rich allies of the US and so the US went in search of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and another scapegoat; someone with whom they had unfinished business and less cordial oil relations.
In the days immediately following 9/11, the Bush Administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. A memo written by Sec. Rumsfeld dated 27 November 2001 considers a US-Iraq war. One section of the memo questions "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US-Iraq War.
In the lead up to the Iraq War, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) showed that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed a threat to their security and that of their allies.
In 2002, the United Nations Security Council – of which the US and UK are 2 of only 5 permanent members - passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles.
In 2002, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not yet verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations regarding what weapons it possessed, as their work was still unfinished.
In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. With the cooperation of the Iraqis, a third weapons inspection team in 2003 led by Dr David Kelly – who on 17th July 2003 was found dead near his home in Oxfordshire, England - viewed and photographed two alleged mobile weapons laboratories which were actually facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons. The leader of the UN Weapons Inspectors, Hans Blix, advised the U.N Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved in “months” if Iraq remained cooperative.
Back in the US, the Bush Administration - primarily President George Bush, son of former President George H.W. Bush; and Vice President Dick Cheney, former President George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense during the first Iraq War - had been selling the invasion to Congress and the American people for 18 months. Fired up by mainstream media fervor and the oft-repeated label, ‘The War on Terror’, the public desire for reprisals had not diminished.
In October 2002, speaking at a Labour Party conference in the UK, former president Bill Clinton declared his opposition to a second Iraq War, stating, "As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future. I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."
Besides a few who protested, Congress too was sold on a second Iraq War.
In an attempt to restore a sense of reason and justness to the widespread war-mongering, an anti-war mass movement had taken root and was seeking to stop the impending invasion, but their calls, as well as the calls of a few in Congress and those by the UN and their team of weapons inspectors, fell on deaf ears.
On 16th March 2003, the U.S. government advised the U.N. inspectors to leave their unfinished work and exit Iraq. On 20th March 2003 the American-led coalition conducted a surprise military invasion of Iraq without declaring war. This started with a sustained bombing campaign and lead to a ground invasion by US and allied forces, which lasted until December 2011.
So what is the outcome of this ‘War on Terror’:
As is the case with times of war, there are too many atrocities and criticisms to name them all, but I have listed a significant few: The legality of the war, Insufficient post-invasion plans, Human casualties, Human displacement, Financial cost, Destabilisation of the region, Humanitarian crises like malnutrition and damaged infrastructure, Rise in extreme Islamist insurgents and subsequent ethnic cleansing, Four-fold rise in the cost of oil due to disruption of Iraqi oil production, Guantanamo Bay & Abu Ghraib torture abuses, Blackwater, and on and on and on! And what about at home? We’ve faced increased security and subsequent erosion of our freedom, namely in the form of the US Patriot Act and allied equivalents. The trauma of War has also left thousands of soldiers seeking medical help for PTSD and similar conditions.
Estimates of the casualties of the Iraq War vary: Average figures of total deaths are over 1 million. Average figures of Iraqi civilian deaths are over 100,000. US and allied military personnel deaths came to over 5,000.
Financial estimates put the total cost of the Iraq War at around $1.7 trillion (just over £1 trillion). Imagine the good that could’ve been done in this post-9/11 world with $1.7trillion?
There were serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War in general. On 16 September 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal." But to date no war crime charges have been brought upon the perpetrators.
The Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush Administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States, but once again, no charges are brought upon him.
And then there is the ongoing ‘9/11 Truth’ movement, which calls for a full, independent investigation into the events of that fateful day. 13 years on, there is still no sign of this ever becoming a reality.
The UK Prime Minister during the first six years of the Iraq War, Tony Blair, has since stated that he would’ve invaded Iraq simply to remove Saddam’s regime, which I find very revealing because it shows Blair thinks nothing of illegal invasions and breaching international law. Considering the damage that has been done, you would think he would have at least the tiniest shred of regret? But nothing of the sort! And instead of being charged with war crimes, he has been Middle East Peace Envoy (some sort of sick joke?!) since leaving Office. How’s peace in the Middle East going, Tony?
I’m not saying that Saddam’s regime was good, or that it didn’t need to be removed, but the way the illegal invasion was carried out with no clear plan of how to pick up the pieces in the aftermath and rebuild Iraq for the Iraqi people has lead to the level of deprivation and desolation that is unfolding in the news today. Saddam’s regime was cruel and murderous but at the very least it kept a pressurized lid on the melting pot of Islamic sectarian unrest that has been bubbling under the surface of countries like Iraq for many, many years. Removing Saddam’s regime removed the lid and the subsequent explosion of Jihadist extremism is both a result of removing Saddam’s regime and the total disaster that was the illegal Iraq War.
The crimes of 9/11 and ‘The War on Terror’ have accelerated tendencies that were already underway: the Bush doctrine on preemption is an illustration. As was predicted at once, governments throughout the world seized upon 9/11 as a “window of opportunity” to institute or escalate harsh and repressive programs, like the Patriot Act, for instance. The Bush Administration also exploited the new phase of the ‘war on terror’ to expand its overwhelming military advantages over the rest of the world, and to move on to other methods to ensure global dominance. This military expansion continues with the Obama Administration and though it may feature less ground troops, the use of drones and the recent bombings in Iraq show that the region will feel the US’s continued presence for the foreseeable future.
The destabilization of the Middle East is an ongoing problem for the people of the region. The rise of militant Islamic insurgents has lead to the formation of a group named the Islamic State, or IS, who has taken control of much of Iraq and Syria and begun ethnically cleansing the region. IS has seized the weapons that the US gave to the new Iraqi Army and used them to take control of the region. IS has killed thousands of Iraqi’s, particularly the Yazidi’s in the North of Iraq. It has also been beheading US journalists.
In an address to the nation (and the world) last night, President Barack Obama declared, "The United States will conduct a campaign against the IS that includes targets in Syria."
The President had been under pressure from both home and abroad to announce a comprehensive U.S. strategy against the IS and his response is more bombings.
The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, declared last week that the Home Secretary has confirmed that the Joint Terrorism Analysis group has raised the terror threat from substantial to severe and he will do whatever it takes to protect the British people. I think this is supposed to make people feel more scared and more dependent on Government to protect them, no questions asked. Has nobody learned from the mistakes of the past? War begets war. As Martin Luther King Jr. said many times, “It’s either nonviolent co-existence or violent co-annihilation."
I don’t argue that IS appears to be a violent extremist group who has grown militarily and economically strong in Iraq and Syria or that they need to be contained. But are we really going to continue bombing and killing in order to do so? Is there not a better way? Why can’t/won’t these politicians and their masters understand what it is that causes ‘terrorism’ to begin with? IS in particular are the flowered seed of the illegal Iraq War. The only thing to have flourished in this ‘War on Terror’ is terror itself! ‘The War on Terror’ is actually ‘The War of Terror’ waged by imperialist powers against the poor. IS is a direct consequence of this flagrant war machine, not vise-versa, as our masters would have us believe. In a capitalist world, peace can only ever be a dream. If world peace was declared today a lot of wealthy people would lose a lot of money. In a capitalist world, war on tour, means money on tap for those at the top of the wealth pyramid.
What our politicians seem to fail to understand and what they can’t or won’t learn from past experience is if you want people to be less radical, less extreme and more peaceful, you don't try to destroy extremists, you merely render them obsolete. If you bomb those who say they want to kill you and create collateral damage by killing large numbers of innocent civilians, you are going to create more extremists with more legitimate reasons to want to kill you in the future.
Instead of spending trillions suppressing extremists who are lashing out due to already intolerable poverty and oppression, spend the money on helping them to develop their own infrastructure, hospitals, schools, transport and sanitation, amongst other essentials. This all started because greedy people left the Middle Eastern people without these basic essentials to live an equitable life. So the disgruntled people of the Middle East organised and revolted, they were attacked and suppressed, they sought revenge and became more and more radical as the situation escalated further and further into more and more hateful, vengeful acts of violence.
As Gandhi said, "the old adage of an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind." You can't fix anger with hate. You can't with violence with revenge. You can't fix terror with terror. If a radical puts out a video spewing vitriol and seeking to influence others with less of a gripe, don't bomb his house and kill the rest of his family, chances are killing members of his family radicalized him in the first place and using further violence will rally others to his cause, legitimizing his words. Seek to delegitimise his hate with understanding, apathy and kindness.
To sum up, don't bomb a school, build one. We should be building bridges between differing ideologies, not burning them down. To do that we need to show regret for our past indiscretions and a willingness to build a better world. The problem of how to deal with IS and other insurgent groups will not go away and it will only get worse if we continue to use violence against them. Making peace will be harder than ever before but if we don’t at least try to settle our differences peacefully we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past with escalating levels of violence and horror.
History tells us there were no terrorists to fight or WMD’s to seize before the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. But there are now; the US and its allies put them there!
Andrew Parker – The Voice of Anarchy