The aftermath of the Cold War heralded its own era of instability. However, rather than
symbolising the United States’ misuse of overwhelming military capability as it does today
and the ‘shock and awe’ that its War on Terror has triggered, the post-Cold War iteration
was instead a projection of the world’s collective incredulity at the sudden collapse of
communism.
Basking in the afterglow of what it believed to be a decisive ideological triumph, the
United States quickly lost its edge. This apparently conclusive victory bestowed Washington
with a sense of invincibility and inherent superiority, prompting a collective malaise in
strategic planning. Carefully crafted alliances with such significant states as Pakistan and
Indonesia were left to fester as the raison d’être for their expedient construction collapsed.
Former Cold War theatres were left abandoned as post-communist states were left to forge
their own futures in relative isolation. It is truly remarkable that so many fledgling states
were established without substantial cost to their populations.
This geopolitical neglect quickly backfired upon the United States. Although clear markers
were put in place regarding what laid in store for the world’s sole superpower (including,
but not exclusively, foiled attacks on the World Trade Centre in 1993; a catastrophic
international intervention in Somalia between 1993 and 1995; terrorist attacks upon US
forces in Saudi Arabia in 1996), Washington’s strategic blinkers prevented it from reacting.
A foreign policy paradigm based upon traditional tenets of overwhelming military and
economic power was ill-positioned to react to the intricate threat matrix that emerged in
the 1990s. The United States’ ability to achieve total battlefield domination through the
power projection toolkit of overwhelming land, sea and air supremacy were suddenly not
enough, as a raft of security challenges emerged that transcended national boundaries.
Terrorism, disease, resource allocation and access to the basic fundamentals of life are now
uppermost in the thoughts of Western strategic planners; classic zero sum game, state-to state
conflict must rank very low in their priority lists.
While traditional military capabilities must be maintained by Western states, their
collective response to - and anticipation of – global threats is in desperate need of a fourth
arm. Although soft power mechanisms of diplomacy and addressing the legitimate political
grievances of disenfranchised populations around the world is still very much a work in
progress, their centrality to conflict prevention and resolution is without question.
War on Terror giving rise to legitimate political grievances
The local populations in the countries which lie at the heart of the WOT, namely Iraq,
Afghanistan and Somalia, share common grievances. They generally consider that the US is
waging a war against Islam whilst failing to bring about substantial improvements in the
quality of life. Regrettably, international proclamations have failed to realise and the
peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia lack a positive outlook for the future.
An especially worrying indicator of violence and extremism is the widespread state of anger
among the youth in the three WOT theatres. The existence of large groups of frustrated and
disenfranchised young men is a problem affecting the whole of the Muslim world and
beyond, and represents a real threat for all countries concerned with major implications for
national security and stability.
Angry Young Men: Stabilisation efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia at Risk
Since the 1970’s, leaders from the developing world have tried to deal with the
demographic pressures derived from having populations with a high percentage of young
people. This problem has been the subject of renewed international interest in recent years
because of its particular incidence in the Arab world, where people under 25 constitute 60
per cent of the population. Several studies and articles have analysed the impact of
exceptionally large numbers of youth, the so called “youth bulges”, on the security and
stability of a country. Research reveals a clear link between large youth numbers and
increased risks of social unrest, civil war and terrorism. This problematic demographic
represents a particularly formidable obstacle to peace and stability in war-torn countries
like Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States Census Bureau classifies “youth bulges” as the demographic situation
where the proportion of young adults (from 15 to 29) to the overall adult population is
higher than 30 to 40 per cent. A recent study conducted by Henrik Urdal demonstrated
that the existence of youth bulges increases the risk of armed conflicts, rioting or
terrorism. The scholar explains that for every increase of 1 per cent in youth bulges, the
likelihood of conflict increases by 4 per cent, which means, for example, that countries
experiencing youth bulges of 35 per cent have a 150 per cent higher risk of suffering an
armed conflict than countries with a more stable age structure. Once more, these numbers
refer to general situations, illustrating the tough challenge faced by countries in already
unstable situations which have a large percentage of youth.
“Provide us with a good economic income, and then we’ll talk about democracy.”
Employee
Baghdad, May 2008 |
Notably, in Afghanistan around 47.9 per cent of the male adult population lies within the
youth bulge; in Iraq it is 45.2 per cent; and in Somalia, 37.5 per cent. Furthermore, the
demographic landscape for these countries is not expected to change considerably in
coming years: the population projections for the years 2007, 2025 and 2050 all show a
prominence of young people in the age group 0-29, indicating the continuation of a
relatively young society for at least the next 50 years.
The lack of legal economic opportunities in the Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan is
deeply worrying - unemployment rates are estimated at 47 per cent, 30 per cent
and 40 per cent (with much higher figures for those under 30), respectively.As manifested in these three theatres, unemployment, combined with legitimate grievances
such as corruption, political fragmentation and internal strife, has prompted young people
to behave violently and created an opportunity for extremist and armed groups to recruit
new fighters.
|
3.2 Ideologies: a war of interpretation
|
The destructive nature of the broad strokes of the War on Terror is evident worldwide, from
unrelenting insurgency movements in Iraq and Afghanistan to simmering anger amongst
Muslims in European capitals. There exists a comprehension gap between the allied states
that adhere to Western ideals, and disillusioned communities caught up in the War on
Terror. This dichotomy of understanding gives radicals ample material with which to recruit
and build a power base.
“I am very angry because of the bad security situation. It is getting worse and worse every day.
We are very worried and we feel lost.”
Housewife
Baghdad, May 2008 |
|
3.3 The need for a new international security paradigm
|
Failing war on terror policies have illustrated the need for a new global security structure.
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the evolution of responsible methods of direct
intervention was abandoned. The US substituted this progress with the prioritising of high
impact assaults on the new enemy.
Shared democratic values and willingness for collective responsibility were overtaken by
rhetoric. Broad terms were introduced by the US to generalise multi-faceted threats.
Complex layers of security challenges became ‘global jihadist terrorism’, ‘axis of evil,’ ‘with
us or against us’ and most famously ‘the War on Terror.’
Many states have been excluded from global security and state-building efforts. Those
sidelined are now extremely reluctant to become involved in the crucial post-conflict
reconstruction phases in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are less likely to participate in future
interventions. Moreover, states with Muslim majorities have largely fallen well outside of
this new order. Given the extent of its military and might, there is a clear need for the US
to be included in the leaders of global security interventions.
The ineffective, costly and unsustainable management of the conflicts in the three main
War on Terror theatres has undermined the US position on the world stage and has indeed
exacerbated the conflicts it meant to resolve. Creating and implementing a new effective
approach for Iraq (and Afghanistan and Somalia) would effectively mean struggling against
the current architecture.
The gap between the official War on Terror rhetoric and the implications of such strategy
on the ground is so wide that only a comprehensive and re-invigorated commitment to
change the way the international community deals with major crises can hope to redress
the entrenched grievances and rising mistrust.
The critical situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia demonstrates the need for a new
international paradigm that can cope with existing crises and prevent future ones. The
current tools available for conflict prevention and resolution are clearly insufficient and
ineffective. Proposing policy changes is not sufficient; a completely re-designed New
Architecture of dealing with global security threats is needed.
br>
Global Security Objectives
Resolution of the multi-faceted problems thrown up by conflicts in the current War on
Terror theatres requires nuanced policies aligned with defined measures of success:
stability; prosperity; and a politically and economically friendly member of the
international community.
- Stability: The first measure of success in any conflict is stable government. Winning
the hearts and minds of locals and helping them to achieve sustainable peace will
provide a stable platform from which to re-orientate the international community’s
interventions.
- Prosperity (Employment, Development and achievement of Millennium
Development Goals): Field research shows that unemployment and limited livelihood
opportunities represent two of the biggest drivers of conflict among young,
disenfranchised populations. Employment development and achievement of Millennium
Development Goals must be viewed as security instruments.
- Friendly political and economic climate: A third measure of success is that the
population in conflict theatres actively opting in to the international community as a
politically and economically friendly member.
Door Number 3: In search of an alternative approach in Iraq
Current debate in the War on Terror and the intervention in Iraq assume two military
options – to stay, or to leave. This bipolar policy choice is not an accurate reflection of the
true range of options. Furthermore, the present approach is indicative of a more general
fatigue in strategic innovation, with policymaking inertia preventing the full conquest of
credible threats. The first step in ensuring a coherent and effective response to the growing
global security threats is to recognise the failure of the current system to deal with conflict
and security challenges. In the interests of moving forward, a Door Number Three must be
seriously considered.
Current social, economic and political conditions in Iraq must in fact dictate the actions to
be taken in order to promote the overall global security objectives of stability, prosperity
and ensuring a politically friendly partner. With sectarianism and unemployment emerging
as pressing security threats in Iraq, a job surge and bottom-up approach which empowers
the grassroots level should become priorities. Moving beyond purely military and
intelligence means, it is vital to overcome the “us against them” divide and, instead, build
a close partnership between the Iraqis and the international community at large.
Towards a New Global Security Architecture
The process of developing the New Global Security Architecture is as important as the
outcome; it must be inclusive and representative, and should strive to strengthen and
spread universally-accepted democratic and humanitarian values. An open and allencompassing
debate recognising the failure of the current system to deal with global
security threats is the first and essential step in consensually defining the new security
paradigm, which must uphold the highest ideals and respect for human rights.
The enemy of militant extremism is not one that can be ‘defeated’ in the classic military
and intelligence sense. Against a background of ever-changing threat conditions, the
system in place is stale and unable to take on modern challenges. There is a pressing need
for a reordering and broadening of interventionist strategies. Faced with a growing number
of global security threats, it is imperative that the new global security paradigm
encompasses employment, capital investment, human rights, foreign investment, the
Millennium Development Goals, a positive counter-narcotics policy, media and civil society
development as vital security instruments.
