The War on Terrorism Is not Over

This Tuesday, Barack Obama met his predecessor George W. Bush in Tanzania. They were there together to honor the 200 victims of the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam in 1998. This same event also started the search for Osama bin Laden. Obama and Bush have both been deeply influenced by the war on terrorism, even though this attack took place during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Despite this, many — particularly Europeans — had hoped that Obama would differ radically from his predecessor, but the two of them jointly laying down a wreath by the memorial monument is an important symbol that highlights the continuity of the two administrations.

Even before Barack Obama became a presidential candidate in 2008, there was talk about the Obama doctrine. Obama talked about abandoning unilateralism, ending the war in Iraq, closing down Guantánamo, but most of all, about an America free from the Bush doctrine with its neoconservative philosophy. That is why Obama was praised in Europe, as well as in the United States. And as a reward for not being George W. Bush, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

But Obama was not the weak-kneed peace dove that some American rightists had made him out to be. On the contrary, he has stepped up the war against terrorism, much to the disappointment of his fans in Europe and the American left. But Obama has not betrayed his ideals; from the beginning, he made it clear that his foreign policy would be about intensifying the struggle against al-Qaida. The killing of Osama bin Laden was the fulfillment of a goal set up early on, not only for the United States, but for Obama himself. He has progressively used the word terrorism less and less, in favor of focusing specifically on al-Qaida. The use of drones in the war against them has increased — something that has had some people surprised. They should not be.

The difference from Bush is that Obama is not quite as willing to spread the word of democracy by force of arms, and that he is generally skeptical of military interventions. He ended the war in Iraq, the last troops are leaving Afghanistan, and he has allowed cutbacks in the military budget. Recently he has allowed for the possibility of sending light arms to the rebels in Syria, but this seems half-hearted. He is backed up by a public opinion that is negative to a military intervention, according to the Pew Research Center.

Our view of war is, for all intents and purposes, caught in the world that existed up to World War II, when sovereign states with conventional armies fought each other for territories. But warfare is increasingly taking place in a gray area, where the enemy rarely is another nation. Nations have gone from being virtually alone on the battlefield to being only one player of many. Al-Qaida is a loosely connected network without a clear hierarchy, which has caused some to take the opinion that its members should be treated as criminals rather than enemy soldiers. But there is a world of difference between planning to rob a bank and planning the large-scale killing of civilians. Even if the war on terrorism is officially ended, we have to catch up mentally to the way war is actually conducted today. The warfare of the current day does not allow us to pretend that it is possible to go back to the outmoded view that war can only be fought between nations.

The problem with the war on terrorism is in no small part related to the fact that terrorists do not fight for any particular nation. It would be easier if they wore uniforms, so that they could be more clearly identified. But terrorists are more like soldiers than anything else, even though they hide their intentions. It is true, however, that the war on terrorism demands more restraint and a better sense of proportions than what has been shown by the U.S. at times. It is laudable that Obama, in a speech at the National Defense University at the end of May, let it be known that he wants to de-escalate the war on terrorism. He proclaimed that the war cannot continue forever and quoted founding father James Madison: “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” It is a nice quotation, but Obama misses the fact that it is not just up to the U.S. or the western world in general to choose its enemies. His rhetoric also jars against his own policy — a policy that is a continuation of that of the Bush era.

When the president of the United States is sworn in, he/she is given access to information about the threats to national security. Once Obama was elected, some of his rhetoric changed. He came into power by criticizing Bush’s mystery-making, but as the NSA scandal shows, has rather extended and deepened it. He has dealt harshly with whistle-blowers. Many have been disappointed. Just like George W. Bush, Obama has asked the American people to trust him and that he is acting for a good cause, for the safety of the country. Guantánamo, for example, is still open. That in itself may say something about how extensive the threats really are. In this, however, lies a problem of information. We will most likely never know how many terrorist attempts have been averted by U.S. terrorism laws, since most of the material is classified. One thing is certain: So far no one with access to the information on threats against the United States has chosen to end the war on terrorism.

In his speech in Cairo in 2009, Obama claimed that the Bush administration’s choice between freedom and security was a ”false” one. Now, four years later, it is obvious that good will was not enough to make that dichotomy disappear. Rhetorically, Obama is trying to move away from the war on terrorism, but we are living in a new time with new realities. The dichotomies of the Bush era are still with us. You can call the war on terrorism by some other name, but not even an American president can make an enemy go away just by snapping his/her fingers.