<tit>
"TERRORIST-BREEDING BASE IS EXPANDING"<stl>Osama bin Laden lured the US Army first into Afghanistan and then to Iraq
<aut>Alexander Tikhonov
<src>Voenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer, No 47, December 6 - 12, 2006, p. 5
<sum>Deputy Chairman of the Security Committee of the Duma Anatoly Kulikov about the war on terrorism.</sum>
<cov>EXCERPTS FROM THE SPEECH OF ANATOLY KULIKOV, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE SECURITY COMMITTEE OF THE DUMA, AT THE CONFERENCE "ANTITERROR: COMPLEX APPROACH"
How could 9/11 terrorist acts take place? Do we know everything there is to know about them? General of the Army Anatoly Kulikov, Deputy Chairman of the Security Committee of the Duma, believes that certain starting points may prompt answers to these questions. The cost of the war on terrorism is one of them. Almost 3,000 civilians perished on September 11, in the United States or were never seen again. Damage to the national economy amounted to $80 billion.
The response, i.e. counter-terrorism operation in Afghanistan, cost the international contingent 475 lives. Afghanistan lost a great deal of lives too: 5,000 Taliban gunmen, 1,500 Al-Qaeda extremists, 2,000 servicemen of the Afghani army and law enforcement agencies, and 3,500 noncombatants. What the Americans call a counter-terrorism operation in Iraq began in March 2003. The counter-terrorism operation reported almost 3,000 lives lost. Iraqi losses are estimated at 30,000 servicemen and 19,000 civilians. According to Kulikov, however, other estimates put civilian losses at almost 50,000. As a matter of fact, a truly colossal estimate was aired the other day - 600,000 victims. (Kulikov, however, is reluctant to accept validity of this estimate without a thorough check.)
As for the financial cost, the war on terrorist cost the US budget almost $450 billion (three fourth of that in Iraq, one fifth in Afghanistan). The US Defense Department accounted for 91% of these costs. As far as Kulikov is concerned, the horrendously expensive military operation has failed to accomplish its purposes.
Almost 130 servicemen of the Israeli army and almost 1,000 Lebanese noncombatants perished in the Israeli war on the Shi'ah Hezbollah, another so called counter-terrorism operation. And here is another figure staggering in implications: 1,000 refugees per every killed Hezbollah gunman. Israeli action certainly multiplied the number of potential enemies of the war on terrorism among Arabs.
Where Russia is concerned, 12 years of the counter-terrorism operation in Chechnya cost the country almost 45,000 lives (counting losses of the federal forces and noncombatants). More than 500,000 residents of Chechnya and nearby areas were compelled to flee their homes.
When losses of the population (not terrorists!) vastly outnumber the losses reported by counter-terrorism forces, how can we consider the ends accomplished and the means of accomplishing them correct? Let us take even a broader look at it? Can text-book methods of hostilities be applied in the war on terrorism in general?
Experts from American and European secret services admit that five years of the war on terrorism failed to give them an insight into mechanisms of functioning terror cells or into their weak spots. Paradoxically, but the war on terrorism did members of counter terrorism coalitions more moral damage than any tangible harm to terror cell themselves. The strategy of viewing all terrorists as being Al-Qaeda only worsened the situation. "It won't hurt to listen to the analysts who say that viewing bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda as some advanced guard of international terrorism is like refusing to acknowledge an even harsher reality. As things stand, what was the core once (Al-Qaeda) gave way to a whole global network of terror cells that may be isolated from one another but that support each other at least ideologically," Kulikov said.
If we assume that it was a war on Al-Qaeda, then the counter-terrorism coalition cannot be regarded the winner. Osama bin Laden accomplished what he had only dreamed about. He lured the US Army first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq and forced on the Americans and their allies an endless war by his rules. What really counts is that he had the United States do away with his bitter enemy Saddam Hussein. "Here is a question then: is this what a war on terrorism should be like in principle?" Kulikov said. "It is clear now that this particular task had best be left to intelligence and other specially trained servicemen and SWAT teams provided law enforcement agencies cooperate and interact with their foreign analogs."
The war on terrorism transformed into a war on terror means, a war on a vaguely defined target with a part of the latter reserved for the people as such. Consider Afghanistan: the Talibs have never been decimated, and the end of the war is not even foreseeable. Consider Iraq: contingents of the allies sit in their fortresses with the civil war raging all around them. Intensiveness of terrorist acts increased to 800 per week. They kill up to 120 people every day. Consider Lebanon: Hezbollah has never been defeated. Israel's actions only boost its popularity among the locals.
A lot of questions were asked. Afghani representatives, for example, wanted to know what they though about a connection, if any, between terrorism and Islam and why they thought the war in this country was still under way.
Kulikov was straightforward in his answers. He knows that not every Moslem is a terrorist. Unfortunately, however, most terrorists are Moslems. How did this state of affairs come to pass? US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice said on the eve of the war in Iraq, "We will bring our democracy to Iraq." Everybody knows what Moslems with the Koran ingrained in their mentality understand by the term "democracy". It does not take a genius to guess reaction of the Moslem world to Rice's words because as far as the Arabs are concerned, American democracy stands for debauchery, excessive drinking, and so on. Needless to say, the Americans cannot very well expect any support from the locals in Afghanistan or Iraq...
