What Is Left of the War on Terror?

Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)
Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)
TT
20

What Is Left of the War on Terror?

Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)
Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)

Can three planes sum up a portion of history and the future? It seems that this has already happened. While two of these planes hit the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11, the third took off around twenty years later, departing from Afghanistan as desperate Afghans chased it, with some losing their lives as they clung to it.

However, summing up a portion of history in this way could seem “disturbing,” as it is a reductionist narrative of the thousands of people and billions of dollars that were lost. It would perhaps be more sound to add a fourth plane - a drone this time, that which killed Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul last August.

Twenty-one years on from 9/11, can we say that the “terrorist groups” who had initiated this battle at its outset, like Al-Qaeda - and we can add those that followed in its footsteps with new names and slogans, like ISIS, if we want to be brutally precise - are still robust forces? And what is left of them? Where are these remains found? Are they still the number one enemy of the United States?

In Afghanistan itself, where everything began, the enemies of the United States have expanded their circle of hostile targets, with ISIS-K launching a suicide attack against the Russian embassy. On the other hand, the United States has reached a settlement with the Taliban, which had been on the opposite side of the War on Terror. Their deal left the latter back in power, but that did not prevent the United States from keeping its eyes open and taking out Zawahiri.

In an August piece published in the Rand Institute, James Dobbins argued that “this latest success demonstrated anew the efficacy of US long-range targeting capability, but this has never been in doubt. What has been questionable, and remains so, is the US ability to monitor extremist activity in a country in which it lacks both direct access and a partner on the ground.

He then added: “the Taliban’s apparent decision to host the world’s most wanted terrorist will probably lead the world to further isolate the Taliban, making it more difficult to track, let alone influence, what’s going on there.”

Iraq and Syria

In Iraq, Mosul’s historical Nuri Mosque, which ISIS had turned into its headquarters, is now under UNESCO’s control. Things don’t seem different on the military front.

The official spokesman for the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service, Sabah al-Numan, affirmed two days ago that “the ISIS terrorist gangs have lost the initiative,” adding that the situation on the border with Syria has become much better and more stable.

However, while his assessment is encouraging, many observers remain worried about cells active in the country. Indeed, their fears are not baseless, as an ISIS cell was recently apprehended in Kurdistan.

The picture is not much different in Syria. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have discussed attempts by ISIS-affiliated militants to open corridors south of the Euphrates to establish lines of communication with other members.”

According to a statistic published by ISIS’s Al-Naba magazine, 26 of the 50 operations the organization launched between the first and seventh of September hit targets in the Levant, leaving 49 people dead or wounded.

Al-Qaeda boasts two headquarters, the first in Yemen, where the group managed to kill 21 Yemeni soldiers in the south this month, losing only six of their fighters in the clashes.

The second is in Somalia, where the Al-Shabab, Al-Qaeda’s strongest and most active branch, killed 17.

African affiliates

Through operations and attacks of divergent scales, ISIS affiliates are active in several African countries, where they have left (in the first week of September alone) 75 people dead or wounded.

Mohamed Fawzy, an Egyptian researcher specialized in regional security affairs, tells Asharq Al-Awsat that “after 2001, terrorist attacks would rise and fall, peaking period after 2011.

However, he adds, “The organizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS are still active in critical strategic areas in the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia, especially after the Taliban took over the Afghan state. Indeed, the Taliban’s rise has motivated many organizations to strive to replicate its model and has turned Afghan territory into a safe haven for many of these groups and their top brass.”

Who is the enemy? What is the priority?

The AP reported that the second in command at the CIA said in a closed-door meeting that fighting Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups remains a priority, but increasing funds and attention will go to countering China. Naturally, the increased focus on the latter will reduce the funds allocated for combatting terrorism.

This shift did not occur overnight, but it seems to be moving increasingly swiftly recently. In June 2021, the Pentagon announced its decision to reduce the number of American troops in the Middle East. Two months later, the decision to pull out of Afghanistan was taken.

Moreover, Russia’s war on Ukraine has compelled the US to focus more strongly on Europe, with President Joe Biden announcing the deployment of new troops shortly after that war began.

Nevertheless, Fawzy insisted that “terrorism still constitutes the greatest threat facing all countries of the world. Experiences have demonstrated that these organizations cannot be completely eliminated, especially with their adoption of novel strategies.”



Amine Gemayel to Asharq Al-Awsat: At Saddam’s Request, I Tried to Prevent the American War on Iraq 

Gemayel maintained good relations with Saudi leaders from the era of King Faisal to that of King Salman. (Courtesy of Amine Gemayel)
Gemayel maintained good relations with Saudi leaders from the era of King Faisal to that of King Salman. (Courtesy of Amine Gemayel)
TT
20

Amine Gemayel to Asharq Al-Awsat: At Saddam’s Request, I Tried to Prevent the American War on Iraq 

Gemayel maintained good relations with Saudi leaders from the era of King Faisal to that of King Salman. (Courtesy of Amine Gemayel)
Gemayel maintained good relations with Saudi leaders from the era of King Faisal to that of King Salman. (Courtesy of Amine Gemayel)

Lebanese former President Amine Gemayel’s term (1982–1988) was difficult and turbulent. The Lebanese people were divided, and regional and international conflicts over Lebanon intensified. His presidency began amid the aftermath of the Israeli invasion of Beirut and the assassination of his brother, President-elect Bashir Gemayel. The difficult developments followed swiftly.

In the year following the 1982 invasion, Moscow and Damascus supported Walid Jumblatt, head of the Progressive Socialist Party, sparking the “Mountain War,” which deeply fractured the Druze–Maronite coexistence in the region. In 1984, Damascus backed Nabih Berri, head of the Amal Movement, leading to the “February 6 Intifada,” which shifted the sectarian power balance in Lebanon, which was in the throes of its 1975-1990 civil war.

Another significant event occurred in 1983 when suicide bombers attacked the barracks of the US Marines and French troops in the multinational peacekeeping force, killing hundreds and prompting Western withdrawal. Amid those explosions, Hezbollah was born—a force that would later become the most dominant player in Lebanon, particularly after inheriting Syria’s role there. During Gemayel’s term, Syria attempted to broker a “militia peace,” but the so-called “Tripartite Agreement” collapsed, paving the way for more wars and negotiation rounds.

Gemayel did not surrender to efforts aimed at controlling or isolating his presidency. He worked to maintain Lebanon’s relations with the West, strengthened ties with moderate Arab countries, and built relationships with leaders such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Moammar al-Gaddafi, as he recounts in the final part of his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat.

Amine Gemayel sits down for an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat Editor-in-Chief Ghassan Charbel. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Close relationship with Saudi Arabia and its kings

Asked about his relationship with Saudi Arabia, beginning with his visit alongside his father, Pierre, to meet King Faisal bin Abdulaziz, Gemayel said: “I’m proud of that relationship. I’m proud to have met all the kings—from King Faisal to King Salman. There isn’t one of them with whom I didn’t have a close personal relationship, and I take pride in that. Most of them had a special affection for me.”

He added: “At this time in Lebanon’s history, Saudi Arabia is the elder brother. Saudi Arabia never stabbed Lebanon in the back. It was always by Lebanon’s side through good times and bad, offering moral, social, and humanitarian support. You can’t deny that. You have to appreciate and respect those who stood by you in tough times.”

He also recounted a fond memory involving King Salman: “May God prolong his life. When he was governor of Riyadh, I used to visit him regularly. The Riyadh office knew me well. Every time I came to the Kingdom, it was expected that I’d visit the governorate.”

“Once, when I had an appointment with him, he took me to the desert to a camp of his—traditional tents, but inside one of them was a high-tech office with internet and modern communications. He told me he could contact anyone from there at any time. I asked if I could call home. He replied, ‘No.’ I was surprised. Then he said, ‘You can’t call home because your home is here.’ That’s how warm the atmosphere was. I truly appreciated his gesture.”

He continued: “In Lebanon’s difficult days, the Kingdom was always by our side. Even today—despite frustration with Lebanon’s ingratitude or Iranian influence—Saudi Arabia still has Lebanon in its heart. It waited for the first opportunity to return and help. Today’s hope in Lebanon is due to the Kingdom’s full weight and influence, working to restore Lebanon’s institutions and stability.”

Saddam’s armored car

Regarding his relationship with Saddam, Gemayel said: “It was a very warm relationship. I visited him several times in Baghdad. Once, during my presidency, there was an assassination attempt against me. He called and asked, ‘What are you doing about your security? They say you need better protection.’ I told him we were doing our best and relying on God. He said, ‘That’s not good enough—I’ll send you my car.’ The next day, his armored car arrived by plane—fully fortified inside and out.”

That relationship lasted until Saddam’s final days in power. Gemayel recalled: “On the eve of the (American) war, he sent word asking to meet. I went to Baghdad. He told me, ‘Things aren’t going well with the Americans. You have good relations with them—can you help us understand their intentions?’ I told him the issue was bigger than me. I had good contacts, but not at the presidential level anymore. He asked me to try anyway. So I went to the US, met with some people, but avoided senior officials to avoid media attention.”

Gemayel’s cousin, a top US lawyer with ties to James Baker, helped arrange a meeting: “We met Baker, who was almost retired but still influential. After a few days, he said he saw a glimmer of hope. He jokingly pulled out a stack of one-dollar bills and asked when I was born. I said December 1942. He found a bill with a serial number matching my birthdate, signed it, and gave it to me for luck. I still have it.”

Saddam Hussein welcomes Gemayel in Baghdad. (Courtesy of Amine Gemayel)

“Sadly, it didn’t work. The Americans had made up their minds. Many tried—including the Vatican—but nothing succeeded. Still, it was an effort made at Saddam’s request.”

Gemayel added: “My ties with Saddam and his team, especially Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, remained very good. Saddam wanted to help Lebanon. But his relationship with (Syrian President) Hafez al-Assad was bad. They had mutual hatred. I still have the armored Mercedes he sent me—top-level protection, still in excellent condition.”

Asked about Saddam’s personal demeanor, Gemayel said: “Very approachable. One-on-one, there was no protocol. He was warm and engaging—you forget he’s this powerful figure. But reaching him was a maze—multiple layers of security and misdirection. You’d think you were meeting Saddam, only to find it was a lookalike. Eventually, you’d be taken to a modest house far from the airport, where the real Saddam would be waiting.”

On Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, he said: “Kuwait’s issue with Iraq is old, like Lebanon’s issue with Syria. But historical claims don’t justify violating sovereignty or erasing borders. Despite my personal ties with Saddam, we strongly opposed the invasion of Kuwait—a country with excellent relations with Lebanon. Just as we rejected Assad’s plans to annex Lebanon to Syria, we rejected Saddam’s attempt to annex Kuwait.”

Gemayel and Gaddafi: From estrangement to friendship

Gemayel’s relationship with Gaddafi began with tension but later transformed into friendship. He recalled: “When I became president, Libya, without coordination, sent military forces to Lebanon. That was illegal and against Arab League protocols. I sent Gaddafi a message demanding their withdrawal. He refused and took a hostile media stance. So I cut diplomatic ties with Libya early in my presidency.”

Later, Moroccan King Hassan II helped mediate: “I had a close relationship with King Hassan II. He invited me to a private dinner in Morocco. During the meal, he left twice—unusual for him. The second time, he returned smiling and said, ‘Gaddafi is on the phone—he wants to meet you.’ I was surprised and hesitant, especially with the issue of Imam Moussa al-Sadr still unresolved. But the king reassured me, saying Gaddafi had promised a new page. He offered his own plane and a senior minister to accompany me to guarantee safety.”

Amine Gemayel had a frosty relationship with Moammar al-Gaddafi that turned to friendship. (Courtesy of Amine Gemayel)

They traveled secretly, landed at a military airport in Libya, and met Gaddafi. Gemayel recounted: “He was extremely courteous and warm. We had a long conversation and agreed to reset relations. He asked how Libya could support Lebanon internationally. I thanked him, and flew back to Beirut.”

“But during our flight, Israeli radio reported that my plane had disappeared en route from Morocco. Panic erupted in Beirut—emergency meetings, calls to the US, plans to file complaints at the UN and Arab League. My wife was informed. She calmly said, ‘I’m not worried. Amine does these things—there must be good behind it.’ Eventually, the king reassured everyone I was fine.”

After that, Gemayel and Gaddafi maintained a cordial relationship: “He would often insist I visit. During the Arab Summit in Algiers, our seats were side by side. Gaddafi wanted a statement condemning the US raid on Tripoli that killed his adopted daughter. I proposed he draft a statement to be added to the final communiqué. I wrote it for him. He loved it.”

“There was also an issue with his tent. He refused to stay in a hotel and insisted on his tent. Algerian security and President Chadli Benjedid objected. Gaddafi threatened to leave. I mediated, and in the end, he sent the tent as a gift to my plane.”

Gaddafi never discussed the disappearance of al-Sadr with Gemayel. Gemayel said Syrian intelligence had reportedly played a role in the disappearance, as it controlled Libyan airports at the time. The mass popularity of al-Sadr was said to have disturbed the Syrian regime because his vision for Lebanon’s Shiites conflicted with Syria’s agenda.

Despite all the hardships of his presidency, Gemayel said he harbors no bitterness: “I have peace of mind knowing I stayed true to national principles and did my best.”

He expressed satisfaction with his son Sami Gemayel’s political path as a lawmaker and head of the Kataeb Party, and praised President Joseph Aoun’s guidance of the army and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s professional record—wishing success for the current leadership in Lebanon.