The war on terror, from Bush to Obama

A decade after the destruction of the Twin Towers, the gravest terror attack in human history, it is possible to compare the policies of the war on terror of two different governments, that of former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama.

The central difference between the two men's policies is the definition of the enemy and the relationship to the threat: Bush declared war on terror across the entire world while Obama's government focused on the struggle against al-Qaida and its offshoots. Bush's broad definition of the threat created a situation in which, in the name of the war on terror, the United States found itself in a number of unnecessary wars, such as that in Iraq. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Obama's definition of the threat is narrower and blurs the understanding of pragmatic factors versus extremist jihadists in the Muslim world. Consequently, it may even harm the pragmatic motivation for a real internal struggle against radicals.

Bush divided the world into an axis of evil versus an axis of good. Obama and his advisors intensely disliked this division; they preferred to replace this distinction with one between the "violent extremists" and all those others that are not extremist, thus narrowing the definition of enemy to al-Qaida only.

On the basis of these different definitions of the enemy, the two governments generated different strategies for the war on terror, both trying to act effectively and simultaneously on two levels: to reduce the terror organizations' ability to carry out their operations and to neutralize the overriding motivations for carrying out terror attacks. Bush focused on treating the operational abilities of the terror organizations by attacking their facilities, financial sources and operations, as well as damaging the regimes that provide them with shelter and support. Obama, in contrast, seeks to prevent the radicalization of Muslim communities and to neutralize the support base of the al-Qaida network. Obama's strategy is based on the knowledge that regional and international conflicts are utilized by al-Qaida in order to brainwash and incite the masses.

It appears that Obama got confused between the fundamental factors of al-Qaida motivating the terror and the instrumental factors utilized by this terror organization for incitement, brainwashing and recruitment. By dealing with the fundamental factors in the long run, the global terrorist phenomenon will likely disappear, or at least be weakened. In contrast, dealing with the instrumental factors will not bring about any real solution to this problem. Settling regional disputes, however key to the rhetoric of al-Qaida, will not destroy the organization. As long as the ideology that forms its foundations continues to be spread throughout Muslim communities worldwide, Ayman al-Zawahiri and his associates will use tensions and conflicts in order to mobilize supporters and adherents. Ignoring the teachings, goals and activities of these organizations does not bring about real reconciliation between the United States, the West and Islam. It only weakens moderate Muslims, who require great courage in the face of fundamentalists.

If we don't address and fight the fundamental Islamic factors of al-Qaida, even surgically cutting off its head will not succeed in suppressing the phenomenon.

The writer heads the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the IDC Hertzliya.