On the occasion of the fourth anniversary of September 11 attacks in 2001 against New York and Washington, the international media has widely covered the “war on terror” and policies made under its name during the last four years.
All of them are based on a belief that the Australian prime minister John Howard, allied that does not criticize George W. Bush, recited in a forum published by The Age in which he stated, as the Bush administration, that “terrorism” posed a threat to Western liberal democracies and the way of living of their citizens. Thus, defending democracy requires to rethink about the functioning of the States and envision a global struggle, a fight that requires at the same time a redefinition of the international law, of logical consequence, although not assumed, of the ideas and objectives defended by John Howard.
The deputy director of the Russian newspaper Vremya Novostyey, Semen Novoprudsky, is not very far either from this approach when he ascertained that September 11 was the beginning of a new era characterized by the global fear of a terrorist threat and a disappointment about the capacity of the States to ensure security to their citizens. He also felt that the attacks against New York and Washington caused the disappearance of the belief in a united world, under the same ideology of Christian values. In short, even if he did not express the conclusions of his analysis, there is a need to reform the States in order to prepare them in the fight against the adversaries of the Christian world.

As repeated by the dominant media, the problems of the “war on terror” have been widely introduced in the national debates.
In Germany, the issue of the war on terrorism, just as it has been defined by Washington, appears in the ongoing electoral campaign. The Welt an Sonntag made a crossed interview to Otto Schilly, German Federal Minister of Interior, and Günther Beckstein, his apparent successor in case the conservatives win the elections on September 18. For the conservatives, the fight will last centuries and to wage it effectively it is necessary to strengthen the anti-terrorist structures. He also suggested to review the policy on the right of asylum in Germany, as well as closer relations with the United States, and he considered that Germany is today a pivot of terrorist actions. When he was questioned, the social democrat minister defended himself without daring or wanting to question the basic principles of the war on terror. Otto Schily also stated that the war on terror will last centuries and emphasized on how he is resolving the issue. He is proud of having reduced the number of entries of those who apply for asylum in the German territory and having achieved closer relations with the United States.

In France, the issue of the “war on terror” is inserted in the primary electoral campaign of the UMP, main right wing party, for the candidacy to the post of mayor of Paris. The French deputy and president of the Parliamentarian Assembly of NATO, the very atlantist Pierre Lellouche, has taken advantage of the September 11 commemoration to stir the scarecrow of Islamic terrorism. He supports the anti-terrorist policy of Nicolas Sarkozy, but denounces the inaction of the Parisian municipality with regard to its preparation for a terrorist attack. Hence, to present the antithesis of what he calls laxism, he stresses his links with the director of the New York police or the former U.S. democrat senator Sam Nunn.

The speech that accompanies the “war on terror” is hardly questioned. However, in the name of this combat, Washington has waged a war of aggression against Iraq which has isolated it, and worries part of the American elite.
The U.S. strategist Harlan Ullman urged the Australians in The Australian to reexamine the links between the “war on terror” and the war on Iraq. This conflict is a strategic mistake based on the neoconservative idealism. For the author, the division of the U.S. society and the call of the great principles for legitimization of its foreign policy have pushed Washington to make up a super-powerful enemy and try to accomplish unrealistic objectives. It is convenient to adopt more pragmatic positions. However, although this text is to criticize the policy of the Bush administration, reproaches are related to the most neoconservative aspects of the U.S. strategy, without having really questioned the major guidelines of the American propaganda. Thus, the author states that the United States went to Iraq to establish a democracy and this country is deeply divided between ethnic-religious groups.
Therefore, it seems that this forum adopts the same approach as Francis Fukuyama and other U.S. analysts who, without questioning the imperialism of their State, denounce the tactical mistakes of the Bush administration which, in their opinion, might weaken the global strategy.
The Syrian analyst Marwan Al Kabalan also considers that the policy of the Department of State is in a dead-end. The new strategic doctrine implemented after September 11, known as the doctrine of strategic strikes, was aimed at making a safer United States, but actually, it has only increased the risks for Washington, because if the governments hostile to the U.S. have thus far considered that attacking this country will expose them to a response, they now know that whatever they do, they run the same risks, so it is better to take advantage by attacking it.
This is a logical analysis, but ignores a fundamental aspect: The United States has not developed the doctrine of preventive strikes to protect itself more, but to justify aggressions.

Actually, what worries part of the U.S. elite is that the mistakes made by the White House have divided the coalition established after September 11 and broken national unity by backing the figure of the Commander in Chief of the United States.

The U.S. Ambassador to France and former partner of George W. Bush, Craig Roberts Stapleton, is making efforts to welcome France again within Washington, thus vibrating the solidarity rope in adversity. In Le Monde, he emphasized on France’s action regarding the assistance to the victims of hurricane Katrina and used this solidarity act to ask for a stronger cooperation between Paris and Washington in the war against terrorism.
Carie Lemack, for his part, who is the president of an association of families of the victims of September 11 attacks in 2001, made a call in favor of national unity in the Boston Globe. He felt that the anti-terrorist fight should not be the object of debate nor depoliticized. Playing the card of emotion and frequently evoking the memory of his mother who is missing, he asked that the progress made in the war against terrorism should be left in the hands of experts and, getting the deceased to talk, invites Americans to forget about controlling the action of their government in this regard.

Opposed to this image almost unanimous of the war against terror, few authors try to make a dissident voice to be heard.
Professor Noam Chomsky is interested in the U.S. arguments and those of its allies. In the Khaleej Times and El Periodico, he used historical examples to show that the calls made for the war against international terrorism were just an update of the classic imperialist speech: this used staging that is sold now attired to modernity, the nation is always in danger, threat is important and leaders’ aspirations are always guided by ideals and altruist values.
In the website alarabonline.org, the Jordanian deputy Aouda Boutros Aouda expressed his anger about the acceptance of the principles of the doctrine war against terrorism by the Arab leaders. He congratulated former Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamed, for having dared to present the Coalition forces as the real terrorists. In fact, the link between Islam and terrorism has become an evidence so strong for Western media mainstream that the action of the Western governments against the civil population in order to get a political benefit has not been presented as what it is: State terrorism.
The French journalist Naima Bouteldja also denounced how common the linkage between terrorism and Islamism has become. In The Guardian and Taipei Times, she recalled that the attacks in 1995 in France were presented for long time as actions of Islamic networks, while the implication of Algerian generals does not leave room for doubt. Without denouncing the official thesis she calls readers to be prudent with regard to jumping at accusations that serve the politicians’ interests.