A Self-Defeating War

by George Soros

The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive
and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure
of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several
fronts – Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia – a war that has
killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the
world. Yet al-Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed
more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British
intelligence.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted
by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely
admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror
remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most
Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on
defense.
What makes the war on terror self-defeating?

First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged
against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because
terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries,
and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their
families and communities that in turn serves to build support for
terrorists.
Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political
movements that use terrorist tactics. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the
Sunni insurrection, and the Mahdi Army in Iraq are very different forces,
but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from
differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits
much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that
support terrorist groups.

Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most
territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have
shown, al-Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror
increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence
agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still
at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like
the one foiled in England.

Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We
are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that
we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world,
however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America
and much of the world.
Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot
be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great
damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home.
It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has
tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the
critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a
lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other
urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we
so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy
crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.

With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding
into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if
we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we
persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate.
It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of
reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought
about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to
prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society
lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the
test that confronts us.

This piece originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Reprinted
with the author's permission