Since the very beginning of the war on terror and more recently the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq, the US-led coalition has found it very difficult to define and understand its enemy. Why are these people attacking the beautiful peace loving liberal democracies of the West, and why is it so hard for them to embrace the freedom and democracy that is being presented to them in Iraq? Well, I think most of us will agree that the understanding of the “enemy” has been rather limited and that this is perhaps the biggest problem in both the war on terror and the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq. The latest pop word in the debate is “Islamic nihilist”.
A nihilist is defined as: "someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief”, or simply as an "anarchist". This has got to be the most comfortable definition of an enemy there is. We have no idea why they are fighting so they must be nihilists who believe in nothing. However, isn’t the term Islamic nihilist a contradiction in terms, and oxymoron? If you believe in no moral or religious system, then what on earth makes you Islamic?
The definition of the enemy in Iraq and in the war on terror as an Islamic Nihilist is a real disaster as it means giving up trying to understand the opponent. Winning the war on terror by defining every the enemy as a nihilist means that the war is essentially lost. Without understanding where terror comes from – please do not try to eradicate it! It can only get worse!
(c) Robert Egnell
Since the very beginning of the war on terror and more recently the counter-insurgency campaign in 
