The 'War on Terror', declared to have begun nearly 10 years ago, is, according to one of its chief proponents, still 'not over'.

Tony Blair was kind enough to speak on Radio 4, claiming that the apparent 'threat' would end only when 'we defeat the ideology'. He even went so far as to claim that it was 'deeply naive' to believe that the US & UK response to 9/11 attacks were to blame for extremist Muslim factions. Evidently Blair is continuing to only listen to MI5 when they agree with him - Stella Rimington, former head of MI5 described the response to 9/11 as 'a huge overreaction' in a Guardian interview.

Instead, we are supposed to believe the Time-magazine rhetoric of 'terrorists hate us because they hate our freedom', spouted time and time again in American news reports, television shows and even children's colouring books*. If political leaders are to be believed, then we are also supposed to believe that 9/11 was an unprovoked attack.

Perhaps though, there are other reasons why the 'War on Terror' is apparently not yet over. Not withstanding that humans have been trying to kill each other since we worked out how, ignoring the CIA financing & training Afghan militant groups from 1979 to 1989 and discarding that tricky difficulty of defining the difference between a solider defending our freedom and a terrorist assaulting it.

Take for instance that little reported week-to-week occurrence in Northwest Pakistan; drone strikes. They've been occurring for the past seven years, and reported strikes have gradually stepped up in intensity until, based on estimates and official reports, for the past four years, an average of 500 people are being killed every year.

It's difficult to imagine how people must feel living in areas where at any time, 25,000 feet above their heads, a 66 foot wingspan drone may be circling, loaded with a 500lb laser guided bomb. I think I'd feel rather terrorised, really.

The CIA do not report any civilian deaths, but the Bureau of Investigative Journalism claim that at least 385 civilians, including over 160 children, have been killed. Pakistan's Interior Minister claims that 'drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens'.

Whether you think of this as a campaign of military oppression against the people of various countries, (this doesn't just happen in Pakistan) or as pre-emptive strikes which are required to stop terrorist organisations from gaining enough power to mount another serious attack, it cannot be claimed that 'surgical strikes' really are surgical.

Obama's top counter terrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, is quoted to have said 'there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.' According to Reuters, the second largest death toll for a drone strike took place on July the 12th with 45 'suspected militants' killed in multiple missile strikes.

Returning to Tony Blair's claims, is this really the way to go about defeating 'the ideology'? Of course, on the other hand, if we didn't go around provoking wars, who will buy our guns?


*bit.ly/ovZ3WW

[Sources]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html?_r=2&hp (CIA claims 'a yearlong perfect record')

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-pakistan-missile-idUSTRE76B0I320110712

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/01/911-coloring-book-sparks-outrage-from-muslim-group/

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911jointsessionspeech.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035838/9-11-anniversary-Tony-Blair-says-war-terror-over.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/18/stella-rimington-9-11-mi5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone