The global ‘war on terror’ may have stuck somewhere in the Asian region between Afghanistan and Iraq and has largely failed to mark its scheduled wider aims or global impact, since it was launched by the US and allied forces in 2001 in Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it definitely has strengthened the terrorists worldwide by making them feel part of a bigger struggle and helped to hit the international headline of every newspaper as well as news channel.
In a surprising move, the British administration, which is one of the major alleys of the US in the ‘war on terror’, has refrained itself from using the phrase ‘war on terror’ to talk about the fight against any type of political and religious aggression.
International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, in a speech in New York, also pleaded Americans to exercise the ’soft power’ of values and martial force, instead of ‘war on terror’ that only strengthens extremists, to overpower radicalism.
We do not use the phrase ‘war on terror’ because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.
Due to a good Islamic population, the British government often uses more taciturn language while illustrating the danger from Islamic extremists at home as well as away.
Benn’s remarks just indicates the anxiety of Labour Party, which immensely oppose Britain’s participation in the Iraq war or ‘war on terror’, about Blair’s close association with the US President. These comments can easily be perceived as a deception to make aloofness from Mr. Blair’s unpopular support for the US led ‘war on terror’.
