A formal declaration of war upon all forms of «militant Islam,» as a number of neo-conservatives are now proposing, is myopic and risks expanding the «war on terrorism» into a crusade without end. The Don Quixote battle cry against all forms of »militant Islam,» which is largely intended to galvanize an increasingly isolationist American public into action, appears evocative of the Cold War when the Soviets saw a «Capitalist» behind every windmill, while the Americans saw a «Communist.»

The issue raised here is that one simply cannot blame «militant Islam» for all crises ranging from the causes of the Iraq war (by linking Saddam Hussein to bin Laden and Al Qaida, for example) to car burning in the French banlieue. What has been called «militant Islam» may well be the source of the September 11, 2001 attacks, not to overlook the attacks in Madrid , Bali , Casablanca , Moscow , Beslan and London , as well as in Baghdad , among other cities, but it is not at all the root cause of either the Iraq war or rioting in France . And formally declaring war will only deepen the crisis with the Arab/Islamic world.

A formal declaration of war on «militant Islam» would, first of all, result in the loss of executive flexibility to effectively deal with other actual and potential threats, whether by police action, or Special Forces where necessary. There are many groups with differing ideologies that are willing to use extreme violence for various causes. These causes include support for secessionist movements or opposition to various issues, from abortion, to animal rights, to fears of world government, as well as hostility to US, European or Russian policies throughout the world.

In this respect, rightwing groups were, for example, responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and possibly for the anthrax mailing scare in late 2001 in the USA . Various mafias, which may or may not claim to be Islamic, have engaged in kidnapping and murder in Iraq and elsewhere. Not all groups that are willing to use «terror» adopt «Islamic» ideologies, but given the spread of powerful weapons of both conventional and unconventional destruction, any group can potentially become as dangerous and fanatical as Al Qaida. To focus on «militant Islam» alone would thus be to lose sight of the actual or potential dangers posed by other groups of differing beliefs and goals.

A formal declaration of war upon «militant Islam» additionally raises a number of significant questions that would need to be answered before authorities begin to galvanize the military, state bureaucracies, and the general population into action. How does one define the term, «militant»? How does one define the term, «Islam»? On what grounds would individuals be accused? Which groups would be determined to represent «militant Islam»? The concern raised here is that of the totalitarian tendency to lump all critics together, both moderate Islamic reformers along side of militants who are willing to use violence, and then to prosecute all of these differing factions indiscriminately.

The Bush administration has been accused of forming its own mini-Gulag of «Islamic militants,» with detention camps and torture facilities in Afghanistan , Iraq , Guantanamo , Cuba and possibly in eastern Europe; such facilities would, in effect, expand in scope to that of a full-fledged Gulag, should the US formally declare war on «militant Islam. » Washington has blatantly refused to abide by the Geneva Convention in arguing that the presumed «terrorists» themselves do not abide by Geneva rules, so why should the USA ? As the Abu Ghraib prison scandal revealed, the US used torture methods that were purposely aimed at denigrating Arab/Islamic values. Yet how can one ever win the «hearts and minds» of the general Arab/Islamic population by demeaning the very core values and identities of those people that one claims to be defending?

As the torture scandal continues to unfold in the media, it appears that the «rank and file» of the Iraqi Interior Ministry have set up a concealed network of torture facilities that «are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,» according to Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq. These torture facilities have ostensibly been designed as an aspect of Shi’ia revenge against Sunni atrocities that were committed both before and after Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. In this respect, it is clear that «double standards» engaged in by both the American and post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government have only served to inflame communal strife between Sunni and Shi’a, ironically turning differing «terrorist» factions of «militant Islam» against each other, making it even more difficult to reach a stable peace settlement.

And finally, a formal declaration of war on «militant Islam» would work to preclude efforts to obtain a diplomatic solution to conflicts where a resolution is, in fact, feasible. On a more profound level, what is called «militant Islam» really represents the ideological symptom, rather than the deeper cause, of a number of complex and overlapping geo-strategic, political-economic and socio-cultural disputes. It is only in the effort to achieve a diplomatic resolution (which does not necessarily rule out the use of force) to many of these deeper disputes that «militant Islam» can be isolated, if not ultimately eradicated.

In this respect, a general Israeli-Palestinian settlement could help neutralize «militant Islam.»   The deployment of NATO, EU, and Russian peacekeepers, as well as peacekeepers of Arab/Islamic states, in a newly independent Palestine , would represent a major concrete step toward winding down the «war on terrorism.» Such a peacekeeping force would work to prevent both Palestinian and Israeli acts of «terror» and «counter-terror,» and would help press the differing militant Islamic groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizb’allah into putting down their arms.  

Although a peacekeeping force in Palestine would not resolve conflicts within the entire «arc of crisis,» ranging from North Africa to the Persian Gulf to Caucasus, Central and South Asia and Islamic areas of the Far East, a political settlement in the Middle East would be a lot more effective in bringing peace to the general region in symbolic terms, by showing a real willingness to seek peace, than the present policy of intermittent Israeli military intervention against «militant Islam.» The fact that Israeli «counter-terrorist» actions appear to have been backed by Washington has helped to fuel various jihadist movements throughout the Arab/Islamic world. While Indian-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir, among other issues of concern to the Islamic world, likewise need to be addressed, an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement can certainly begin to win the «hearts and minds» of the Arab/Islamic populations—so as to more effectively isolate, and reduce support for, differing «militant Islamic» groups.

Only a more concerted US, EU and Russian approach to the «war on terrorism,» which engages states of the Arab/Islamic world in thorough and constructive reforms, will ultimately be able to bring acts of terrorism to an end. The formation of a joint NATO-EU-Russian command headquarters for   peacekeeping and anti-terrorist operations (which could be joined by all interested parties) would furthermore represent a major step forward in effectively and responsibly combating the actual threats posed by terrorist organizations, while concomitant multilateral diplomatic efforts would work to resolve the underlying geo-strategic and political economic causes of terrorism.   An essentially unilateral Don Quixote type crusade against the windmills of «militant Islam» will, however, only cause a deeper backlash, sucking an increasingly militarily and economically overstretched United States into quicksand to the delight of a growing number of challengers and enemies—not all of which wear a turban or a veil.