Finding Solutions for a Global Problem: The War on Terrorism

    As a student of political science and international relations, I am very much interested in the "Global War on Terrorism" and all of its elements.  As part of the Missouri State University Public Affairs Conference (April 14-18, 2008), there were many panels and discussions on a myriad of topics that are prevalent in today's society.  I attended the panel discussion labeled, "Terrorism: Seeking Solutions."  The three panelists were Daud Qarizadeh, Stacy Ulbig, and Robert Williams.
    I felt that the panelists each had their own areas of expertise in discussing terrorism.  Daud Qarizadeh focused on the actual ramifications of the war on terrorism, as it affects his home country of Afghanistan.  Stacy Ulbig focused more on how the media affects public opinion regarding the war on terrorism.  The most informational speaker, in my mind, was Robert Williams.
    In determining public policy in the United States, there are many steps in which problems or issues become formulated into official policy.  The first major step is problem identification.  Clearly, everybody with a conscious agrees that it is unethical and immoral to target a civilian population to obtain political means.  The next step in the policy making process, however, is the more interesting one, and the one that was focused on primarily by Dr. Williams.
    The next stage is much more complicated to answer.  After determining that there is an problem/issue of terrorism, the question then becomes, how does one define the problem.  To give a simplistic example, let us examine poverty.  We know what poverty is, and more people than not would agree that it is a problem, even in the United States.  The question then becomes, how does one define poverty.  One can define poverty as a lack of economic opportunity for lower income classes.  The solution then could be formulated as trying to create more economic opportunity, ergo, creating more domestic jobs and trying to raise the standard of living.  However, if one defines poverty as a symptom of laziness and a result of the unwillingness to work, the solution to the problem may, in fact, be to do nothing.  People who are unwilling to work may not be persuaded otherwise.
    Dr. Robert Williams focused the majority of his discussion on how we define the problem of terrorism.  It is quite clear that the "war on terrorism" has defined the issue in terms of a military conflict, and implies that it can be won or lost.  In the mind of Dr. Williams (and I would agree), focusing all of our attention on this one definition of the problem will be detrimental to addressing the complexity of it.  Dr. Williams did make it clear that military action is needed and justified in trying to disrupt terrorist activities (bombing of bases, freezing of assets), but it should not be the only front on which we try to combat terrorism.  There are many underlying causes to why people become radicalized and turn their attention towards annihilating another group of people.  Some say that radicalization happens as a result of U.S. foreign policy decisions (NAFTA, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of the Shah of Iran in the 1950s and 1960s, etc).  Some may argue that radicalization is because of a lack of opportunity, both politically and economically.  How many economically prosperous democracies are state sponsors of terrorists?  In order to effectively combat terrorism, there must be a multi faceted approach to addressing the underlying causes, as well as military action to address the immediate problems.
    Terrorism is an issue that is not only significant to the United States, but the entire world.  This is quite evident with the terrorist attacks in Madrid, Spain and London, England.  Not only are people becoming radicalized in developing (or third world) countries, they are being radicalized in western, democratic, and rich countries.  Some would argue that the rise in radicalization and lure to terrorism is the direct result of globalization.  In a somewhat rhetorical question, would radical Islamic terrorists want to attack the United States, and other western states, if oil was 1) not a strategic resource and 2) not found primarily in the Middle East?  I would argue that if the United States were to find an alternative source of fuel that was more available than oil, and not found in the Middle East, anti-American sentiment would greatly decrease, simply because the United States would have no need to continue current policy towards the region.  Not only that, but the American presence in the Middle East would greatly diminish, consequently resulting in a reduction of anti-American sentiment.  Without holding a comparative advantage over the United States and Europe, the Middle East would greatly reduce in significance. Until that happens though, I do not project any decline in anti-American sentiment.

   Another major factor in the "global war on terror," which is essential in its definition, is how it is perceived by other state actors abroad.  Ever since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, terrorist has become synonymous with Islamic radical/extremist.  Although the three main terrorist attacks (9/11, Madrid Bombings, and London Bombings) since 9/11 have been conducted by radicalized Muslims, it is imperative that the war on terrorism not become a war against Islam.  In fact, another driving force in the radicalization movement, is that the "war on terror" can be viewed by radical Muslims as a war against Islam.  It must be understood that Islam is a religion of peace, and not violence.  Other types of people can be terrorists, as we have seen this first hand.  A prime example of this would be the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), and Timothy McVay.  It is crucial for the United States, and other states across the world, to identify the problem of terrorism as ANY person who commits these criminal acts, and not just Islamic extremists.