Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management

Crisis and Emergency Management

Newsletter Website
return to mainpage

 

 

 

December  2003                                                    Volume 5 - Number 3

 

 

 Related Sites:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perspectives...

 

 

War Against Terrorism: The Proliferation of Risk

Ross A. Gartley

 

As a Canadian citizen, my perception of the risk posed by terrorism is relative to my environment. At home in Toronto, I am not cognizant of the risk.  I believe, whether foolishly or not, that the possibility of being exposed to an act of terrorism is so negligible that it doesn’t merit my concern or attention. The reasons for my perceived immunity at home stems from my belief that Canada has been successful in projecting itself as a peaceful nation, one that is mindful of its affairs all the while respecting the sovereign rights of other nation to do as they see fit. My perceived sense of immunity however disappears the moment I leave the relative bastion of peace that is Canada to travel to United States or abroad.

 

The heightened sense of risk I experience in the United States is due to a perception that is shaped by the presence of visible mitigation and preparedness measures, but moreover from the unrelenting bombardment of terrorism related media content. This barrage serves to foster a sense of fear amongst the general public that the threat is not only real but imminent. The end result is that I have become conditioned to believe that risk of falling victim to an act of terror is significant. Consequently, I find myself consciously taking certain measures to prepare for the “inevitable” event. In light of the current Bush Administration’s War on Terror, however, this may be a good thing because if the risk of terrorism was marginal yesterday, it is sure to be significant tomorrow and as a conditioned individual, I will surely know “what to do”.

 

The Bush Administration’s War on Terror, exercised abroad through the preemptive measures of the Bush Doctrine, is serving to engender a cycle of perpetual violence. Instead of stemming the tide, it is fueling the fire. As a result, the Bush Administration has placed its inhabitants at home and citizens abroad at a greater risk than they were before the implementation of the Bush Doctrine. Regardless of their political/social orientation or religious beliefs, they are perceived to be guilty by association in the eyes of the “adversary. Evidence of this increased risk, moreover its widespread proliferation can be seen throughout the Middle East, specifically in Iraq were the first practical application of the Bush Doctrine has  turned out to be entirely counterproductive. This proliferation of risk will only cease when the Bush Administration realizes that the sovereignty of other states is not subject to the will of the United States and that the notion of fighting a war with no defined “end state” is preposterous.

 

The Bush Administration’s decision to extend the War on Terror beyond its boarders, where its actual power can only be projected and not actually implemented, will serve to engage the United States in a war that it cannot win because it is fighting against a impossible reality, that being the eradication of the world’s individuals and organizations who believe that acts of terrorism represent the only viable means of achieving their respective political, ideological or economic goals. Realizing the impossible and foolhardy nature of this objective, many of the world’s middle powers have taken political steps to distance themselves from the Bush Administration’s War on Terror. It could be argued that the political decisions taken by the likes of the Chrétien Administration in Canada and the Schroder Administration in Germany were taken in an effort to shield their administrations and constituents from the risk of terrorism. This in turn raises the question: Does the objective of minimizing your exposure to the risk of terrorism involve disassociating yourself from the politics of the Bush Administration, or does it involve accepting this new international normalcy being shaped by the War on Terror and as a result prepare accordingly?