The scary wonders and bitter lessons of September

It is fifteen calendar years today that the twin towers were brought down
in New York , the USA by radicalised Islamists under the cloak of Islam
following  a mid-air hijack of  two US-bound commercial jetliners that
wreaked a large-scale destruction of the World Trade Centre and a part of
The Pentagon in a most daring attack. That harrowing incident goes down in
history as a savage attack on civilisation which  resulted in a monumental
loss of human lives.
On this day in question four hijacked jetliners reportedly flew over the
United States hitting targets below. I often sit back, hand on chin
cudgelling my brain to unravel the motive behind the attacks at the period
under sad review, the more I try to find an answer the more I keep failing
at every turn. The men who carried out  September 11, 2001, attacks were
doubtless a band of radicalised Islamists who loathed western values and
cultures and in their campaign of hate killed no fewer than 3,000 people
in the most powerful country in the world.
New York, Washington, Virginia and Pennsylvania were hit in the attacks
which caused disgust and unbridled rage not only in the USA but across the
world. This led to the mobilisation of the world’s largest military
alliance under the then President GW Bush Jnr.  with a firm resolve to
pursue the terrorist to their hideouts.
Our knowledge of any past event is always incomplete, probably inaccurate,
beclouded by ambivalent evidence and biased historians without extensive
research.  Does Islam permit radical Islamism and a destruction of human
lives? And does this violence go down well with those who profess the
faith? I have had to do an in-depth research on this and also go the extra
mile via formal discourses with the adherents of the faith but was
astounded in no small measure  at their opinions and stance on the Quranic
teachings. If Islam is supposedly a religion of peace as they presented it
in the course of our discourse,  from whence comes their  doctrines that
often corrupt other adherents of the faith? This is a question that no one
has been able to give me an answer to this day.
Be that as it may, the world is now under a more serious threat fifteen
years after as terror-linked attacks are  on the ascending order of
magnitude. In Africa, for instance, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has
launched devastating attacks on Mali while Boko Haram holds sway in
Nigeria’s northeast causing a large-scale destruction, Al-Shabab’s
activities have taken a toll on human lives via cross-border attacks
calling to mind the armed invasion of a shopping mall in Nairobi Kenya in
the not too distant past.
Although America has taken some proactive measures and steps to forestall
any of such attacks, pockets of terror-linked attacks have been reported
in the country and in other countries in the West. A deadlier Islamist
terror group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has unleashed fury
recently on great civilisations in this part of the Old World. France has
been hard hit in these attacks and similar attacks by IS militants also
took place in neighbouring Belgium causing an appalling destruction of
lives and property, the very recent one being the  Mediterranean coastal
city of Nice in France.
Today, as the whole world quakes with terror, there is no denying fact
that most of us sleep with one eye opened not knowing whose  turn  the
terrorists’ axe would chop like teak wood. Years after the American-led
invasion of Iraq the death of Saddam has attracted a motley crew of
discontents in the Arab world. Countries that took part  in the gulf war
face increased terrorism threats which speak volumes for the subsequent
attacks  on western interests all over the world. On September 9, 2013,
American Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and scores of US diplomats
were killed. Terrorism threats years after the gulf war have doubtless
continued this time with undiminished intensity thus giving rise to
questions as to why that war was ever prosecuted. However, there  remains,
a natural tendency to ask if  the war and  the resurgent attacks changed
anything. But one and a half decade on, such conclusions seem
unjustified.
September 11 did alter the focus and foreign policy of the George W. Bush
administration. But the administration’s new approach, one that garnered
so much praise and so much criticism, was less transformative than
contemporaries thought. Much of it was consistent with long-term trends in
U.S. foreign policy, and much has been continued by President Barack
Obama. Some aspects merit the scorn often heaped on them; other aspects
merit praise that was only grudging in the moment. Wherever one positions
oneself, it is time to place the era in context and assess it as
judiciously as possible.
All this writer hankers after is the lost golden age without weapons and
violence and has often frowned upon the activities of perpetrators of
violence and death merchants alike. Before 9/11, the Bush administration
had amid other sensitive issues  focused its foreign policy attention
China and Russia; on determining whether a Middle East peace settlement
was in the cards; on building a ballistic missile defense system; and on
contemplating how to deal with “rogue” states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya,
and North Korea. At many meetings of the National Security Council,
officials debated the pros and cons of a new sanctions regime against
Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial government in Baghdad; they also discussed
what would be done if U.S. planes enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq
were downed. Fortunately or unfortunately little was agreed on at the
period under sad review.
As we can see terror has indeed become a thorny and contentious issue the
world must join forces  to fight and bring to a standstill no matter whose
ox is gored. Terror-linked attacks have cost the world so much that it has
become a hydra-headed international problem set to annihilate mankind if
it is allowed to rear its ugly head unabated. Countries have often been
accused of sponsoring and exporting terror and it has become absolutely
necessary to disabuse the minds of rogue regimes who arm terrorist that
the world can not continue to trudge on at their mercy.
A standing multi-national military high command is considered absolutely
necessary to both  check and curtail the excesses of rogue nations who
have been reasonably suspected and indicted for terrorism support and
sponsorship in cash or kind. The world can not continue to brood over the
misfortunes of the past without putting far-reaching measures in place to
check the excesses , the causes of terrorism and thus make provision for a
safer tomorrow. Urgent steps should be taken by the United Nations to
enforce arms control, disarmament and regime change in countries which are
caught red-handed providing financial or tactical support.
The big actors on the world stage commonly referred to as the Big-5 namely
the United States, Russia, China, UK and France should as a matter of
urgency review their foreign policies. These countries are tarred with the
same brush when it comes to the  quest for primacy and military supremacy,
unilateralism without the expressed consent of the rest of the permanent
members  of the UN security council. It would be recalled, however, that
the USA with its allies went ahead and prosecuted the war in Iraq without
the expressed consent of other permanent members. There is indeed a great
danger in this, unilateralism should increasingly be discouraged when it
comes to taking military action against rogue regimes and dictatorial
governments anywhere under the sun.
There is also a need for greater understanding and cooperation  among the
Big-5. Great-power partnerships would doubtless reduce terror threats by
sending a strong message to leaders of  rogue states of the culpable
implications when implicated or caught aiding and abetting terrorists.
Economic liberalisation will remove trade restrictions, promote global
economic growth and, therefore, reduce poverty. Recent studies have shown
that much of transnational together with domestic terrorism stems from
grievances against rich nations. In some cases, terrorist group while
expressing grievances attack nationals and property of rich nations in
their land and such cases have been witnessed and recorded in countries
most susceptible to terrorism. Cases of abductions of foreign nationals
and attack on properties have been widely reported in Pakistan, India,
Iraq, Libya, Kenya, Nigeria and a host of other countries.
Fractionalization is another contentious and thorny issue that must be
looked into. A society that is fractionalized by conflicting interests
brings about a weak government and when this occurs political instability
is elevated. In Nigeria, for instance, we see a country that is highly
polarised and this has resulted in a jihadist insurgency. In the
south-east, marginalisation has brought about separatist feelings and
aspirations thus giving birth to conditions that could trigger off
terrorist acts. Urgent steps must be taken to address this emerging
problem in that part of the country that is gradually rearing its ugly
head on the ascending order of magnitude.
Iyoha John Darlington , a social activist, political analyst and public
commentator on national and global issues wrote from Turin, Italy.