Behavioural Patterns in the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, and How the US Could have Won the War.

It is a known fact that criminal psychopaths (serial rapists, murderers, etc) tend to commit their crimes in certain peculiar to them ways. For example one serial killer might kill his victims always by striking them from behind with a blunt instrument, while another one by a lethal injection using a hypodermic syringe, and still another by strangling them and hiding their bodies under floor boards. The police uses these patterns of behaviour to track down such criminals.

The reason for such repetitive use of the same technique is that initially a potential criminal feels hesitant and insecure, but once he succeeds the first time, his confidence grows. He starts believing in his technique. And with each successful strike his confidence in his technique grows, until it turns into a belief in his own invincibility.

But, one day the magic method, suddenly fails and the chain of crimes finishes in jail or on the Electric Chair (or with a Lethal Injection).

Similar behaviour patterns can be detected in politics — that socially acceptable form of crime, which often involves serial murders, but on a much larger scale, than can ever be achieved by private criminals.

The motivation both in the case of psychopathic murderers and politicians is the same — feeling of power over the victims. And behind this thirst for power usually lies a very strong feeling of inferiority.

The current American War on Terror has given us an excellent opportunity to observe such criminal behaviour patterns exhibited by the politicians heading this campaign.

At the start of the Afghan war there was some hesitation over the attack on Afghanistan, and a UN approval was sought and easily obtained.

Then there was some hesitation over the use of large scale bombing of the Afghan cities, so it was justified by vilifying the Taliban government — which was accepted by “the world community” (to the great shame of Mankind).

The other problem that caused initial American hesitation was the memories of Vietnam, and the effect the American body bags can have on the American public opinion. The American body bag problem was overcome by use of high‐altitude bombings and of local ethnic rivalries, which provided non‐American combatants to do the dirty ground work.

Militarily the Afghan war succeeded, and the pattern was established:

1. get a UN rubber‐stamp approval for war,
2. woo the Public Opinion by vilifying the government of the victim country,
3. mobilize local ethnic rivalries,
4. bomb the cities,
5. let the local rivals do the dirty ground work,
6. install a puppet government,
7. shout victory,
8. consolidate by a girls'‐school‐in‐Kabul to overcome the argument that it was not right to devastate a country to catch one man.

Having discovered the above magic conquest recipe, and having code‐named it “democratization”, the way to world domination has become a cake‐walk. And a US Foreign Policy document was published by the US government to give this pattern a “theoretical basis”. The way for a next war was “all clear”, and the target victim was chosen to be Iraq.

Once a psychopathic criminal establishes the initial pattern, a sudden change in the situation can lead to a panic behaviour on his part and a possible failure as a result of capture by the police or being overpowered by the victim. But, in case of politicians, there is no police, because they are above the law, but there is something called “the Public Opinion” which could mess up their carefully rehearsed plans.

Now, let us see, how the Americans‐Blair coalition were applying the Afghan war pattern to the Iraq war and with what results.

The cake‐walk conquest war pattern developed by the Americans in Afghanistan has failed in Iraq.

The reasons for the failure are:

1. Evaporation of the 9/11 hysteria which has enabled “the World” to regain their ability to think logically. This resulted in a massive opposition to the American‐Blair war against Iraq. The US and Britain have come to be seen as lawless belligerent super‐powers seeking to rule the world by brutal force. G.W. Bush and Tony Blair have become the most hated personalities in the word. They are denounced as criminals and murderers not only in the Arab world, but even in countries like South Korea, where anti‐war demonstrators carry posters comparing G.W. Bush with Adolf Hitler.


2. The Americans are presenting their invasion of Iraq as liberation. They hoped that the Iraqis will see the invasion in the same way. This made them hope that the war will be quick and painless and that this would enable them to justify it by a girls'‐school‐in‐Kabul type trick, and thus overcome the universal opposition to the war. This has not materialized. The Iraqis mounted severe resistance to the invading forces, which has put the Americans before a tough choice between a long‐drawn‐out Vietnam‐style campaign and a large‐scale bombing with massive civilian casualties. Whatever they chose, they are bound to lose.

Saddam Hussain, dead or alive, will go into history as a great Arab leader, who has either defeated America, or died as a brave martyr in opposing it. Even if the Americans succeed in destroying the Iraqi armed forces, which they can only do at the cost of razing Baghdad to the ground — a crime which not only the Arabs, but the whole world will never forgive them, they will never be able to control Iraq. They will be faced with a prolonged partisan war in Iraq in addition to the one they already have in Afghanistan. And with two partisan wars on their hands, what will they do next?

To pursue their global strategy, drafted for them by Benjamin Netanyahu, they would need to proceed to “democratize” other countries: Iran, Syria, etc. Will they still have the will to do so, having burnt their fingers in Iraq? And, if not, then what have their conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq given them? Two endless partisan wars? Was the whole thing really worth it? How did they get the whole idea of “War on Terror” in the first place?

But there were other options for the US global strategy:

1. resolving the Middle East Conflict on the basis of justice, which would have given Israel peace, security and recognition of all the Arab states;


2. lifting up of the Iraq sanctions, which would have resulted in a more prosperous Iraq;


3. establishing of free commercial relationship with all the Arab countries and Iran based on equality and mutual respect.

Would that not result in greater peace and security in the world?

Even now it is not too late to stop the imbecility of the war against Iraq, scrap the War on Terror, and start acting in a sensible way.

All one has to do is to swallow one's pride and admit that one was wrong.

Will G.W. Bush rise up to the occasion? Or is it too much to expect?

If you have found this article stimulating, check out other articles.

If you disagree with us, tell us. Prove us wrong, and we shall agree with you.
If you agree with us, spread the message of Government by Truth, Honesty and Justice.

If you want us to deal with more issues and publish more articles, send a monetary donation.

You can see printed books and publications at Truth and Justice Publications Ltd website and find out how you can buy, borrow or review them.

If you want to be informed of any new articles on this site, send us an empty email, by clicking here. If you are interested in articles only on a particular subject, tell us so in the email.

WARNING: The Google Search data can be out of date. For up to date search go to the issues and browse through the contents using your browser search (find) facility.

Search WWW Search www.truth-and-justice.info Search www.worldjustice.org