Two wars

FOLLOWING 9/11, the ashes of the World Trade Centre in New York ignited fires in different parts of the world. Even now, 23 years later, those fires are proving difficult to extinguish. The so-called War on Terror (WoT), much like the Cold War, has been an expansive war, which has directly or indirectly affected almost every nation. It would, therefore, be of interest to examine their similarities and differences.
The term ‘Cold War’ was first used by George Orwell, the nom de plume of Eric Arthur Blair, in an article in 1945. The war itself commenced with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and concluded with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The WoT started about 10 years later, in 2001. The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2021 was celebrated as the end of the WoT. However, post-withdrawal developments proved that the WoT had merely entered a new phase. The US may have physically withdrawn from the theatre, but its strategic interests remained intact. Even today, the great powers and major terrorist groups do not know when the WoT will end.
While the Cold War was between two blocs, with other states taking a side, the ongoing WoT was supposed to be between nation-states and violent non-state actors. In reality, some states did provide space, finances, and ideological and diplomatic support to violent non-state actors; otherwise, it would be difficult for the latter to survive.
Therefore, though terrorist groups were also active during the Cold War, the post-9/11 era saw a mushroom growth in their numbers. Al Qaeda was established much before the WoT, but it spawned and inspired a number of extremist groups thereafter. The WoT not only impacted the sovereignty of states but also the territorial integrity of a few. Countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan faced instability and were confronted with civil war-like situations.
The Cold War was primarily an ideological confrontation between capitalism and communism; the WoT was about combating terrorism based on a struggle against extremist ideologies. The Cold War and WoT both influenced international relations, with alliances shaping geopolitics. The Cold War saw Soviet expansion, with the capitalist bloc trying to contain it. For some analysts, the Cold War was a smokescreen for the US to influence and control events in Western Europe and Japan. On the other hand, the WoT remained largely focused on specific regions, particularly in the Middle East. The Cold War spawned a nuclear race and indirect military engagements, while the WoT saw direct and prolonged military engagements, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To recognise its strategic partners in 1987, the US designated Major Non-Nato Ally (MNNA) status to various countries.
MNNAs are not members of Nato but are entitled to certain benefits in military cooperation. Out of the 20 countries with MNNA status, eight received it before 9/11, while 12 countries obtained this status in the post-9/11 era. This highlights how the US grew its military influence around the world following the WoT.
The WoT is not restricted to national borders and involves many countries and international coalitions. The WoT often involves state actors combating non-state actors and has therefore influenced security legislation and policies such as the US’s Patriot Act, which extended surveillance and law-enforcement powers within the world’s most powerful nation as well. The WoT also brou­ght with it human rights concerns, es­­pe­cially about tortu­­re, detentions (for example, Guan­tá­namo Bay) and targeted killings via drones.
During the initial phase of the WoT, religious ext­remism, ethnic di­­vides, and political marginalisa­­t-ion fur­ther comp-lica­t­­ed the milit­a­ncy la­­ndscape. The WoT gained impetus from globalisat­ion, technological innovations, the openness of media and the stren­gth of social media, which triggered rights and peace movements on the one hand, while enabling the speedy dissemination of hate material and fake news on the other.
States with weak economies cannot completely isolate themselves as either parties or victims of violent conflicts. The survival and effectiveness of states require a greater focus on countering violent narratives, which is not possible without investing in social empowerment and improving public service delivery.
Terrorism is a transnational phenomenon. There is a need for an increased realisation that terrorism and conflicts benefit only a few powerful entities, while the rest pay the costs. For powerful states and violent non-state actors, terrorism is a commercial enterprise and a source of power, pleasure, and profit. The truth is that sole reliance on military might is not an antidote.
The writer is the author of Pakistan: In Between Extremism and Peace.
X: @alibabakhel
Published in Dawn, November 5th, 2024