The conflict in Mali and its bleak Algerian repercussions has given new life to the debate between two particular camps: The first camp is the one that believes that the “war on terror" is making progress and achieving victories along an ascending line, even if it curves and deviates at times. This is reinforced by the fact that the latest French intervention has succeeded in repelling the jihadi group Ansar al-Din and its affiliates, which may pave the way for their military defeat. The other camp holds that the “war on terror" has led to one failure after another. Indeed, as one question it raises asks, why was al-Qaeda able to do what it has done in Mali? Furthermore, there is the issue of the human cost of the confrontations, and the tragedy in Algeria that is closely related to the conflict. The fact of the matter is that the elimination of Mullah Nazir and his deputy Raza Khan in South Waziristan in a drone strike, and the painful blows dealt to al-Qaeda in Yemen both before and after, tells us that the “war on terror" is indeed making progress. This is not only true on the military arena, but also on the political one. For instance, the Pakistani regime has been put on the defensive, while the “war on terror" has embraced the post-Saleh situation in Yemen, and created an opportunity to jumpstart the political process in Somalia, following the recent setbacks suffered by Al-Shabab there. In the meantime, a number of facts have been confirmed, including the military effectiveness of drones; Obama's new administration's commitment to counter-terrorism, and the fact that the West, particularly the U.S., has maintained the initiative. This is all in addition to the achievements secured before, where the threat of another 9/11 has been completely eliminated, while the battlefields shifted irreversibly, without exception, to non-Western countries. However, skeptics who question this analysis find in Africa a cogent argument. To be sure, the radical Islamist challenge to the central governments of Kenya and Tanzania is on the rise, while the Nigerian group Baku haram, which killed 3,000 people since 2009, is still capable of perpetrating massacres. In the Caucasus, meanwhile, the Russian war against a Salafi terrorist network continues, and is likely to get worse because of Russian preparations for the Winter Olympic Games in 2014, which will be held in the resort town of Sochi on the Black Sea. According to terrorism expert Paul Rogers, who is critical of U.S. policies, the secret to al-Qaeda's endurance and success lies in its gradual transformation from a league or an organisation, to an “idea" that can be mated with any local grievance. But the dilemma that this debate engenders is that both opinions are ultimately one-dimensional, and, in some sense, are essentially of a military and technical background. To be sure, those who purport that the “war on terror" is making progress do not pay attention, except occasionally, to the need to come up with development and economic projects for the regions blighted by terrorism as a treatment for their woes. Furthermore, they lack the resolve required to address outstanding issues like the Palestinian question or the situation of the Kurds and Armenians in the countries they inhabit. But the opponents of the “war on terror" and those who question its success espouse an even worse position. For one thing, the so-called American failure, if indeed true, seems to give them solace about the conditions of their terror-producing countries, which are unable, left to themselves, to produce peaceful political dynamics or bring about serious change in their regimes, let alone societies, without requesting Western intervention. Humility is not a trait of the first opinion, and arrogance is among the attributes of the second one.
