The War on Terror has proven to be a self-defeating metaphor. The 9/11 atrocities could have been framed in two main ways -- as the crime of the century or an act of war. President Bush insisted he knew America was at war from the moment the high-jacked planes hit the towers. However, Bush’s claim was not an objective fact subject to verification, but rather a rhetorical invention suited to a political agenda.
The death and destruction unleashed on that terrible day by a band of mass murderers was real enough, but were the hijackers criminals or soldiers? The jihadists, of course, fancy themselves as warriors in Allah’s army, not petty criminals and barbarous thugs. The former view, however, is both self-serving and patently delusional. The later view, on the other hand, is congruent with depraved and lawless mind-set and character of al-Qaeda and its membership.
There will always be nutcases who dress up in combat fatigues and organize their own paramilitary exercises. Unfortunately, some of these characters will include genuine sociopaths who think they are going to war by targeting unarmed civilians. To label these misfits “soldiers” does a disservice to the brave men and women who serve in legitimate standing armies that are pledged to protect civilians.
President Bush inadvertently played into the hands of anarchic terrorists by legitimizing their delusions. Historically, terrorists groups (such as the Irish Republican Army) have taken great pains to gain recognition as real military organizations. One can argue that lawless groups, such as pirates and terrorists, deserve no such distinction or recognition. They are, in fact, common criminals who cloak their antisocial activities in the garb of liberation movements, but their violent and criminal means invariably discredit and corrupt the causes they purport to champion.
The Obama administration is right to downplay the war on terror metaphor and reframe terrorism as a law enforcement issue. In truth, terrorism represents something of a hybrid challenge. The confluence and terrorists and WMD in the 21st century, raises the prospect of civilian casualty levels one normally associates with war, not crime. One positive consequence of the war on terror metaphor is that it raised civilization’s sense of urgency. However, the war on terror metaphor undoubtedly backfired in many respects, particularly in so far as the Bush administration’s might makes right approach to national security supplanted the demands of justice.
The perpetrators of 9/11 committed one of the worst acts of mass murder in human history. Insisting that their actions were an act of war perversely legitimized their delusion that they were soldiers engaged in holy cause against an infidel power. Put simply, by ratifying the delusion that the highjackers were soldiers we inadvertently reduced their moral culpability. Further, we delegitimized ourselves by torturing them.
The Obama administration has made the decision that the alleged mastermind of 9/11 should stand trial for the crimes of which he is accused. There are risks with this approach, but there is also the opportunity that a fair and impartial trial can deliver the kind of justice that the world will respect and look up to. Ironically, justice delivered in the courtroom may be a more effective blow against terrorism than the Bush administration’s overreliance on military methods, which tended to lose us allies while creating a new cadre of enemies.
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Escalating the War in Afghanistan?
The historian Arnold Toynbee observed that civilizations that attempted to reform far flung outposts on the periphery of their empires tended to fail and decline. Societies that renewed themselves, on the other hand, stood a better chance of succeeding and being ascendant powers.
Toynbee’s observation is extremely pertinent as the Obama administration contemplates a possible expansion of troops in Afghanistan. Proponents of increasing American forces to counter a resurgent Taliban contend that the so-called surge option turned the tide of the Iraq War in America’s favor, so why shouldn’t a similar counterinsurgency strategy work in Afghanistan?
To begin with, Afghanistan is a country five times the size of Iraq with some of the most inhospitable territory in the world. To compound matters, Afghanistan has never had an effective central government and the administration of Hamid Karzai, the partner in any nation building efforts in Afghanistan, is notoriously corrupt and therefore despised by much of the population.
Given enough time, say a decade, a counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan might succeed. But defeating the Taliban and those resisting America’s presence in Afghanistan will likely have a limited strategic impact on the broader campaign against terrorism. Put simply, terrorism is an ideology that defies borders. Waging a battle for territory in Afghanistan is futile or beside the point if America’s enemies can simply flee to ungovernable regions in neighboring Pakistan.
The Bush administration’s strategy against terrorism boiled down to reducing the pool of ‘bad guys’ who are ideologically disposed towards attacking the United States. One limitation of this approach, of course, is that inevitable collateral damage tends to breed new jihadists. As even Don Rumsfeld noted, we can’t be sure we’re killing them faster than they are being created.
The “War on Terror” concept is proving self-defeating in other ways. It costs approximately $250,000 to field a single soldier in Afghanistan per year. Escalating the war in Afghanistan is going to cost the United States Treasury some $173 billion a year going forward. The Obama administration has an ambitious agenda to reform healthcare, repair America’s ailing infrastructure, and invest in the alternative energy sources of the future. However, at some point America’s creditors, particularly China, will have to ask the question: will the United States ever be able to repay the vast sums it is borrowing?
Experts agree that China is a rising power. Increasingly, America’s economic fate is tethered to China’s willingness to lend us money. The more the United States borrows the more leverage China will have over America’s economic and political future. For instance, if the United States does not curb its appetite for debt, then one day Chinese bankers might decide that they require a higher level of interest to compensate for their risk. A failure of America’s elected officials to raise taxes and cut services in order to pay for the servicing of our national debt could precipitate a run on the dollar.
Military success in Afghanistan may be less central to our national security than has been generally assumed. America cannot quit Afghanistan entirely. But our adventure in Iraq should have taught us something about the limits of military force. After all, the “success” of the so-called surge was something of a pyrrhic victory; the surge merely succeeded in mitigating the disastrous consequences of the Bush administration’s ill-advised invasion. Yogi Berra once said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Unfortunately, the United States no longer has the resources to do nation building abroad and at home. America must make a choice.
Toynbee’s observation is extremely pertinent as the Obama administration contemplates a possible expansion of troops in Afghanistan. Proponents of increasing American forces to counter a resurgent Taliban contend that the so-called surge option turned the tide of the Iraq War in America’s favor, so why shouldn’t a similar counterinsurgency strategy work in Afghanistan?
To begin with, Afghanistan is a country five times the size of Iraq with some of the most inhospitable territory in the world. To compound matters, Afghanistan has never had an effective central government and the administration of Hamid Karzai, the partner in any nation building efforts in Afghanistan, is notoriously corrupt and therefore despised by much of the population.
Given enough time, say a decade, a counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan might succeed. But defeating the Taliban and those resisting America’s presence in Afghanistan will likely have a limited strategic impact on the broader campaign against terrorism. Put simply, terrorism is an ideology that defies borders. Waging a battle for territory in Afghanistan is futile or beside the point if America’s enemies can simply flee to ungovernable regions in neighboring Pakistan.
The Bush administration’s strategy against terrorism boiled down to reducing the pool of ‘bad guys’ who are ideologically disposed towards attacking the United States. One limitation of this approach, of course, is that inevitable collateral damage tends to breed new jihadists. As even Don Rumsfeld noted, we can’t be sure we’re killing them faster than they are being created.
The “War on Terror” concept is proving self-defeating in other ways. It costs approximately $250,000 to field a single soldier in Afghanistan per year. Escalating the war in Afghanistan is going to cost the United States Treasury some $173 billion a year going forward. The Obama administration has an ambitious agenda to reform healthcare, repair America’s ailing infrastructure, and invest in the alternative energy sources of the future. However, at some point America’s creditors, particularly China, will have to ask the question: will the United States ever be able to repay the vast sums it is borrowing?
Experts agree that China is a rising power. Increasingly, America’s economic fate is tethered to China’s willingness to lend us money. The more the United States borrows the more leverage China will have over America’s economic and political future. For instance, if the United States does not curb its appetite for debt, then one day Chinese bankers might decide that they require a higher level of interest to compensate for their risk. A failure of America’s elected officials to raise taxes and cut services in order to pay for the servicing of our national debt could precipitate a run on the dollar.
Military success in Afghanistan may be less central to our national security than has been generally assumed. America cannot quit Afghanistan entirely. But our adventure in Iraq should have taught us something about the limits of military force. After all, the “success” of the so-called surge was something of a pyrrhic victory; the surge merely succeeded in mitigating the disastrous consequences of the Bush administration’s ill-advised invasion. Yogi Berra once said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Unfortunately, the United States no longer has the resources to do nation building abroad and at home. America must make a choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
