Call it "State Terrorism", Not "Strategic Intervention"

"Every democracy has its weakness"

Illustration by: Silvi Mary Sunil

When the twin towers, World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were attacked in 2001, the West and their allies cried terrorism. A month later, when the United States of America (US) and their allies forced their way into Afghanistan without United Nations' (UN) sanction, it was justified on the grounds of protecting the Western nations from the threat of terrorism. The fact that Afghanistan was completely taken over by the Taliban merely days after the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) simply indicates that the 20-year-long war in Afghanistan was futile.

The Cost of the War

Since 2001, over 241,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan and Pakistan warzone. More than 71,000 of these were civilians (Watson Institute, Brown University , 2021).

Around 3,500 US soldiers have also died, and various researchers estimate that around $1-2 trillion was spent on the war by the US alone. To put the human cost of the war in context, the very event that triggered this intervention by the US and allies viz. the September 11 attacks, had led to the death of around 3,000 Americans. To put the monetary cost in context, a research backed by Cornell University (USA) and UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) shows that the cost of ending food hunger by 2030 is $330 billion. The US spent at least thrice that amount in its 20-year-long debacle in Afghanistan.

Why does Nomenclature Matter?

Despite the brutal track record of the US and NATO in Afghanistan, they have still not been tried for acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity. Terrorism can be loosely defined as a politically motivated and unlawful acts of violence against persons or property. This is exactly what the West has done in Afghanistan. Then why do we not call the US and its NATO allies terrorists?

The fact remains that “terrorist” has evolved into a label that immediately generates repulsion against a person or organisation. If a state is labelled “terrorist”, it would lose the legitimacy it holds in the present state-centric international system. Therefore, it is very crucial to use the correct nomenclature to describe state terrorism, such as “human rights violations” or “military intervention”.

Countries recruit soldiers to train them in military activities. This army then engages in violent clashes to protect the nation’s interests. These wars often result in civilian casualties. Terrorist organisations recruit militants to train them in paramilitary activities.

These terrorists then engage in violent clashes to promote a fundamentalist or extremist cause. These wars often result in the murder of innocent lives. Note how a simple change in nomenclature can make a huge difference in legitimizing state-sponsored violence and de-legitimizing terrorist violence. Why is it that veterans from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are rewarded with special pensions and discounts in their home country along with respect by their fellow citizens? Have they really done something honorable by fighting a war that should never have been started?

Those who justify the war on the grounds that the Western "intervention" increased female literacy, reduced maternal mortality rates, capacity building for the Afghan forces and so on are clearly forgetting something-- every democracy has its weakness.

Those who justify the war on the grounds that the Western "intervention" increased female literacy, reduced maternal mortality rates, capacity building for the Afghan forces and so on are clearly forgetting something-- every democracy has its weakness.

The US, despite being the oldest democracy in the world, is still divided on racial lines and is characterised by economic inequalities. Does that give another State a right to station its troops in the USA in an attempt to fix its democracy? More specifically, if the tables were turned, and if Afghanistan had attempted to station its troops in the US, would the US quietly accept its fate?

Western European and North American countries may be self-proclaimed torch bearers

of democracy and human rights, but that does not give them any right to occupy a foreign country for two decades. It is time for these nation-states to stop carrying around the so-called “white man’s burden”.

The intention behind this article is not to try and legitimise or invoke sympathy for acts of

terrorism by non-state actors. The aim is to simply make one question their conventional

understanding of terrorism, so that perhaps someday terrorism by States in the name of

“national security” can be de-legitimised.

Article by: Ishita Phuloria