Young People's Socialist League

Afghanistan. Iraq. Somalia. What do these three countries all have in common? They are all hotspots for Islamist organizations and are victims of recent ?anti-terrorist? American intervention. As these countries face political instability and violence from both sides of the war, our nation is coming even closer to an attack on Iran.
After the horrific outcome of the 9/11 bombings, the United States Congress passed measures that allowed President Bush to use all ?necessary and appropriate force? against those he deemed responsible for the events. The bill was passed on September 18, 2001, and the military immediately set off to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which was believed to be harboring Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
Taliban leader Mullah Omar was willing to surrender Bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the U.S. provided evidence of his involvement in 9/11. After rejecting this offer, the U.S. bombed Taliban and Al-Qaeda camps and overthrew the Taliban in December 2001, with help from the United Kingdom and the Northern Alliance, among others.
Not too long after the fall of the Taliban, in 2002, the Security Council of the United Nations issued resolution 1441, a measure carefully-worded to place pressure on the Iraqi government, which was famously accused by the U.S. for having ?weapons of mass destruction? and holding ties to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The U.S. and the U.K. both pressured the U.N. Security Council to create a resolution that would authorize military force in Iraq.
On March 20, 2003, the Invasion of Iraq began, ultimately leading to the Baath Party losing power and Saddam Hussein?s capture and eventual execution while also inviting foreign military occupation and the emergence of the Insurgency. As it turns out, the allegations about ?weapons of mass destruction? and terrorist involvement were never proven, and that Bush?s ?facts? regarding the matter were poorly supported.
As anyone in the U.S. who does not live in a cave knows already, the infamous Iraqi War is still carrying on. While a parliamentary democracy has now been elected into the war-torn country, the number of civilian casualties has reached excesses of 50,000, which is higher than the number dead of Iraqi, American, British, and other military soldiers combined. Not only that, but Iraqi infrastructure has suffered massive damage, and the threat of civil war looms just around the corner.
In the continuation of the fight against Al-Qaeda, the U.S. considered aiding Ethiopian troops and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia as early as December 16, 2001, when the two governments talked about strategies in capturing Al-Qaeda in Somalia. When Ethiopia intervened in the Somali Civil War on December 2006, fighting against the Islamic Courts Union, the U.S. military sent a small number of troops to aid in the conflict.
When the Battle of Ras Kamboni began, as a continuation of the War in Somalia (the term used to describe the conflict once Ethiopia involved itself), the U.S. entered by launching airstrikes using a AC-130 gunship against suspected Al-Qaeda members, including Fazul Abdullah Muhammed. After this attack, involvement of the U.S. government became official.
So how does Iran come into play with all these American attacks on Islamic extremist ?stations?? Well, along with Iraq and North Korea, Iran is one of the central members of Bush?s so-called ?Axis of Evil? over accusations of possessing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism, which bears a startling resemblance to charges Iraq faced.
Contrary to suspicion of Western powers, Iran claims to be using its uranium enrichment programs strictly for civilian use. Interestingly, this has also been recently followed by countries such as Jordan and Egypt demanding nuclear programs as well. Also running against the Iranians are claims that Iran is giving military aid and training to Iraqi troops.
Is Iran really going to be the next center of ?anti-terrorist? attacks? While that can be greatly debated, so can the status of terrorism. How can you wage a war against a tactic? The answer is that you can only have a war against a country or an entity, not a tactic. And what about the people who see themselves as ?liberators freeing their people from imperialist powers,? rather than sharing our government?s perception of them being ?terrorists seeking to take away freedom??
Further more, based on what was mentioned above, is it really a ?War on Terrorism,? or is it a ?War on Islam?? Let?s not forget about other wars on intangible concepts, such as the ?War on Poverty,? the ?War on Drugs,? and the ?War on Crime.? Did we ever win those wars? Or is there still poverty, drug abuse, and crime?
The ?War on Terrorism? can never be won, because as long as people feel the need to violently overthrow what they see as imperialist powers, they will do it. The ?War on Islam,? therefore, seems like a much more appropriate term, because it is the Islamist terrorists that our military is fighting right now.
Here?s a concept that might strike many people, including the Bush Administration that got the U.S. into the mess it is in right now, as very odd: what if we just left the people of the Middle East alone? After all, one of Al-Qaeda?s goals is to eliminate foreign influence on Muslim countries.
Perhaps if we withdrew our troops and abandoned the idea of investing any kind of influence on the Arab world, they just might leave us alone. Then when the people over there get fed up with Islamic extremism, they can take care of their problems on their own and without foreign intervention. Does it sounds like a radical idea? Or does it sound like putting an end to militarism in the U.S?