Alternatives to the War on Terror - Summary

The War on Terror:

• is an unnecessarily confrontational, and counterproductive, way of “framing” the future of the United States and the world
• assumes that the major civilizations of the world will be in conflict for the foreseeable future.
• assumes nations are not capable of peaceful coexistence without US military control being present.
• can achieve no more than a limited form of containment of terrorism.
• cannot achieve any real form of “victory”
• obscures consideration of alternative efforts that would be more likely to reduce the threat of terrorism.
• is achieving the opposite of its stated purpose of “destroying” terrorism.
  • As of 2005, terrorism has increased by 300% from pre 2001 levels.

• can never be concluded except by discarding the concept itself and turning toward other positive and realistic approaches which are currently ignored by leadership.

• The "war on terror" concept is a counterproductive form of leadership because, as a self-fulfilling prophesy of eternal war, it prevents citizens from considering the possibility of other constructive approaches and outcomes, and so should be questioned by the people of the US, and the world.

• The concept of a “war on terror” is an unnecessary obstacle to human progress and should be replaced with a more positive way of “framing” our international efforts toward helping the world progress to a better state than its current condition of heightened conflict, oppression and inequity of opportunity among nations and cultures.

• One possible “frame” that could replace that of a “war on terror” could be Restraint, Cooperation and Outreach. (RCO)

Restraint of the provocative use of military and intelligence forces, and foreign policy by the West which has and continues to provoke terrorism.

Cooperation with other nations and cultures to create a more positive environment for international relations.

Outreach from the West, to the world, to help create improved political, social, and economic conditions on the human scale which will reduce the likelihood of conflict among nations and civilizations.

• Together these three principles, unlike the divisive "war on terror," create a framework from which to develop and institute positive norms and policies for the relationship between the US and the rest of the world.

• Restraint reduces the provocative side-effects of pre-emptive and unilateral war, creating the opportiunity for positive events to occur.
• Cooperation provides opportunities for positive interactions to begin again between the US and the world on the international level.
• Outreach provides opportunities for disparate groups to interact on a human scale. This will increase familiarity among nations and cultures and reduce the likelihood of supporting war against others becuase is it more difficult to support war against those you know and understand.

• Principles of International Relations must make long-term conflict prevention and reconciliation the priority through the seeking of win-win solutions, rather than continuing with the negative and unnecessary win-lose economic and geo-political outcomes our leaders expect and plan for.

• Americans, the people of the world, and the media, and our leaders themselves must begin to think critically about how our leaders conduct foreign affairs. We must begin to consider alternative frameworks like RCO to organize our efforts toward a better future for all of humanity and for the environment in which we and other species depend on for survival.