Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

'Standing firm' can only make things worse - we must withdraw our troops

By Tessa Morris-Suzuki - posted Wednesday, 21 April 2004

When John Howard sent Australian troops to Iraq last year, without the approval of the UN and against the wishes of most Australians, he promised us that this would help make Australia and the world safe from terrorism. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration assured Americans the war would not become a Vietnam-like quagmire, and Pentagon officials predicted a maximum six-month occupation.

Last week, as the Japanese, US and other governments faced the horrible dilemma posed by the kidnapping of their citizens, Howard insisted the only way to defeat terrorism was to "stand firm". "At the present time," he said, "any talk of withdrawal or any weakening of resolve or commitment will only encourage a repetition and extension of this kind of behaviour."

A US military spokesman put the point more bluntly. The US-led coalition, he said, does not respond to or negotiate with terrorists. They only "seek to capture or kill them".


They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

It sounds so persuasive, so morally right, this appeal to "stand firm" in the face of cruel acts of kidnapping and bombing. Ever since the distant days of the hostage-takings at the 1972 Munich Olympics, conventional wisdom has taught us that responsible governments do not cut deals with terrorists. To do so, we have been told, will only encourage the terrorists to further acts of violence.

That position made perfect sense in the 1970s, '80s and '90s, when terrorism was still primarily a criminal issue, punished through the judicial system. But it does not make sense today.

Everything changed the moment the US and its allies decided that the massive use of conventional military might was the only way to defeat terrorism.

As critics of this strategy predicted from the start, its result has been a vicious cycle. Even the most "pin-point" targeting of presumed terrorists causes death and destruction to many innocent people, and this destruction in turn creates a widening basis of support for violent retaliation.

In recent days, between 470 and 600 Iraqis, many of them women and children and many of them unconnected to the attacks on US personnel, are believed have been killed by coalition forces in Fallujah alone. Does anyone seriously believe this is creating a basis for a stable democracy in Iraq? The US military strategy in Iraq is like pouring water on burning oil: the more you quench the fire, the more it spreads.


As a result, the US and its allies are now facing what might be called "the Ariel Sharon paradox". In a war where the enemy is not a state but an assortment of groups using tactics such as kidnapping and suicide bombing, refusal to deal with any terrorist means there can never be any communication with the enemy. Peace can never be negotiated. Violence can only be answered by violence.

In a war with a non-state enemy, terrorist acts cease to be isolated acts of extreme protest. Instead, they become the very means by which the war is fought. There is, therefore, never a "right moment" for a change of course or a scaling down of the military presence. Adherence to the conventional wisdom of "standing firm" means the troops must stay there indefinitely. War must be fought to the bitter end: and that end, if it ever comes, is likely to be very bitter indeed.

In the 21st century, the most courageous act is not an endless repetition of the mantra "we will stand firm against terrorism". The most courageous act is to recognise past failures of intelligence and strategy, and look for alternatives.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in The Age on 16 April 2004.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Tessa Morris-Suzuki is a professor at the research school of Pacific and Asian studies at the ANU.

Related Links
Tessa Morris-Suzuki's home page
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy