As we enter the fourth week of the Afghan campaign it is time to examine tactics.  

There is no doubt that reasonable nations around the world are united in their desire to attack terrorism, but what we are seeing is not a united nations offensive.   Rather, we are seeing a United States action, or reaction, that underlines the reasons why there is so much anti-American sentiment.

There are two indisputable facts:  the leaders of Afghanistan incite violent acts against the USA and protect groups responsible for such acts.  The same could be said of several other countries.  And in yet more countries there are terrorist groups that have not committed terrorist acts on the soil of the USA.  The Americans talk of ‘bringing to justice’ (with bombs?) rather than about preventing more atrocities.  The conclusion must be that the bombing campaign in Afghanistan is much more specific than a war against terrorism, and yet those who question the tactics are accused of lacking resolve.

If the Afghan campaign will indeed put an end to the terrorist activities promoted by Bin Laden then perhaps the Americans can be forgiven for seeking revenge as well.  But there are two more indisputable facts: civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan mount, and thousands of new recruits from other countries flock to Afghanistan to the Taliban’s defence.  They are strange tactics that weaken one’s own position whilst strengthening an opponent’s.

America knows from bitter experience the difficulties of waging war on hostile terrain on the other side of the world.  And the difficulties of waging war in Afghanistan are well known from the experience of the British and, more recently, the Russians.  On day one of the campaign the capture of Bin Laden was the stated aim.  Naively, the USA set the scene for almost certain failure.

Once America claimed air supremacy the continuation of aerial bombardment showed the lack of sensible options.  The enemy possesses only light arms, is extremely mobile and operates in close proximity to civilians.  Severe damage cannot be inflicted from a distance, and so America hurts innocent people and her own reputation, and undermines the strength of the coalition.

Most Western countries wage a constant war against crime without seriously expecting total victory.  Most crime is committed for personal gain, but terrorism is usually linked to an ideal.  In tackling conventional crime one needs to understand human nature, but to deal with terrorism we also need to understand the ideal.  There is genuine unease amongst moderate Muslims over the spread of a Western culture riddled with crime, consumerism, drugs, alcohol, and pornography.  In passionate youths that unease quickly spills over into hostility.  For those who have little to live for other than their faith, that faith can become a very good reason to die.  

Bin Laden and the Taliban do not control terrorism.  They inspire terrorism in others, but they are not essential to the continuance of terrorism.  Which is why it is time to re-think tactics along the following lines:

1.  President Bush should announce the end of the heavy bombing campaign, thanking all concerned for achieving the primary objective.
2.  We should cease thinking of this as a war than can be won, and daily war bulletins to the media should cease.
3.  America should relinquish her self-imposed role as leader of the free world and settle for a leading role in the United Nations. 
4.  The long-term campaign against terrorism should begin.
5.  Incursions and sorties should be undertaken by the UN to build up intelligence against Bin Laden and other terrorists around the world.
6.  Western democracies should examine the flaws within that could trigger self-destruction, with or without the help of outside terrorists.
7.  Diplomatic pressure should be brought to bear on Muslim nations to present the clear message that terrorists do not represent Islam and will not die a martyr’s death.

Terrorism will not be ended by bombs and guns.  Terrorism can only be minimised by dealing with the causes.