When Will It End?

Tomorrow is September 11, and for twelve years now just hearing “9/11” has evoked horrifying memories of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Those dastardly attacks triggered the War on Terror by the U.S., a “war” that continues to this day.

President Bush first used the words “war on terror” on Sept. 20, 2001, and that war officially began 17 days later, on Oct. 7, with the invasion of Afghanistan. Now called “Operation Enduring Freedom,” the war in Afghanistan continues and is now the longest war in U.S. history.

In his State of the Union address in February of this year, President Obama declared that “by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.” While that plan seems to have strong support in the citizenry and pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan will likely take place as scheduled, that won’t mean an end to the War on Terror.

The burning question is: when will it end?

After seeing the movie “Dirty Wars” this summer, I had the sick feeling that there would most likely not be an end to the War on Terror during my lifetime (which I am expecting to be at least another 15 years).

Back in May, the President declared that the War on Terror “must end.” But several Republican Senators, as well as a majority of U.S. citizens, disagreed with him.

Sen. John McCain, for example, blasted the President’s declaration that the war on terror must end as premature and foolhardy, saying that a desire to bring the war “to a compete closure contradicts the reality of the facts on the ground” and declaring that “al Qaeda will be with us for a long time.”

June has often said to me that the military actions of the U.S. in Afghanistan in 2001, in Iraq in 2003, and then in many small-scale actions, such as drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, have been like hitting hornets’ nests. Retaliatory strikes have stirred up more and more hatred toward the U.S. (This is depicted well in this recent cartoon in The Economist.)

 And now there is Syria. Even though point it does not seem to be a part of the war on terror as such, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are urging military action against Syria mainly because of its alleged use of chemical weapons.

A recent Pew Research Center poll, though, indicated that only 29% of the American adults surveyed favor a U.S. airstrike on Syria and 48% oppose such a strike. (The others were undecided.)

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those polled think that U.S. airstrikes would likely create a backlash (stir up more hornets) against the United States and its allies in the region.

Nevertheless, last week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by a 10-7 vote, passed a resolution approving a military strike against Syria. It also set a 60-day deadline for the use of force in Syria, with an option for an additional 30 days.

This week the President is making strong appeals to Congress and to the American people, encouraging support for military force against the Assad regime in Syria.

But even if approved by Congress (which may not happen), or even if a strike is launched without congressional approval (which might happen), would such military action end within 90 days? Perhaps, but quite possibly not.

Let us pray that some good alternative to a missile strike, which now seems somewhat possible, will be implemented.

Trayvon and Abdulrahman

The name Trayvon, sadly, has become a household name in the U.S., and elsewhere. But many of you may not know the name Abdulrahman. Both young men, though, were U.S. citizens born in 1995, and both were tragically killed – but in greatly different circumstances.

Trayvon Martin, as you know, was killed at short range in February 2012 by George Zimmerman. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, as you may not know, was killed at very long range by a U.S. drone.

Abdulrahman was born in Denver, Colo. in September 1995, nine months after Trayvon; he was killed in Yemen on Oct. 14, 2011, ten weeks before the Florida teenager was shot and killed.

The justification of Trayvon’s slaying is highly questionable, although the jury concluded that under Florida law Zimmerman was not guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter.

The killing of Abdulrahman, though, seems completely unjustified and an unmitigated tragedy. It is hard to compare justification for taking someone's life, but the killing of Abdulrahman seems much more unjust that the “self-defense” killing of Trayvon.

Abdulrahman’s father, Anwar, was also an American citizen, born in New Mexico in 1971. And he was killed by a “Hellfire missile” fired from a U. S. Predator drone just two weeks before his son.

The father was clearly linked to terrorist activity. There is no evidence at all that the son was.

Details of Abdulrahman’s tragic death are told in Jeremy Scahill’s 2013 book, “Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield.” The final chapter of that 642-page book is “Paying for the Sins of the Father” and is about Abdulrahman’s annihilation.

On June 28, I attended the opening screening of Scahill’s documentary film with the same name as the book. In it, Scahill interviews Nasser al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman’s grandfather, who is a former Fulbright scholar, university president and Yemeni public servant.

Last week the New York Times ran an article by Grandfather Nasser. It was titled “The Drone That Killed My Grandson.” I encourage you to read that article at this link.

Even though Abdulrahman’s father was involved in terrorist activities, he was an American citizen. Nevertheless, he was never charged with a crime and evidence of his criminal wrongdoing was never presented to a court.

He was just put on a kill list and “taken out” by a drone.

Still, we have been in a “war on terrorism” since 2001, and in a war you target and kill your enemies. So most Americans probably support the killing of Abdulrahman’s father.

And most Americans support continuation of the war on terrorism, according to a Fox News poll. Last month after President Obama said that the war on terrorism “must end,” 77% of the voters polled said the war on terrorism “should continue to be a top priority to the government.

But should that mean targeting and killing a 16-year-old American boy? Surely not!

In responding to questions about his killing, Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary, said that the boy should have had “a more responsible father.”

But maybe we need a more responsible government. And maybe there needs to be more outrage about the killing of Abdulrahman.

Many of us are against profiling and the mistreatment of young African-American men like Trayvon, as we should be.

Why shouldn’t we be even more strongly against the profiling and the killing of a young Yemeni-American man like Abdulrahman?