The internal and external dimensions of the war on terror
There are fundamental misconceptions at the heart of US policy on the war on terror that effect its efficient implementation. Firstly, it seems to be assumed that the terrorists are somewhere ‘over there’, and if we fight them there, then we won’t have to fight them here. Secondly, there is a tacit political agreement that military action in a specific region can result in the end of a terror threat in that country. Thirdly, that the terrorists are third world extremists without complex command structures. The archetypal image is the terrorist in turban and robes, hiding in a cave. Lastly, that US military, diplomatic and economic measures are somehow distinct political strategies, and bear no relation to, or have any great impact on, each other. These common fallacies, promoted heavily in campaign rhetoric and by the departing US Administration, are the cause of many of the failures in recent foreign policies. Like all great myths, there is some resonance to them, as they are true to a degree, but not understanding the multi-dimensional war on terror is the core of the problem the US is now facing in attempting to eradicate the terrorist threat.
MYTH 1 – The ‘over there’ syndrome
Just a few examples to indicate why this is not true, American-born teenage Somalis are being recruited in the US and then appearing as fighters and suicide bombers in Somalia. Funds raised by Pakistan groups in the West help fund terrorist activities such as the recent attacks in Mumbai. Radical Islam, as a philosophic creed, is being communicated from Bangladeshi youths in Britain through social media sites, such as Facebook, back to Bangladesh. Arms are being sourced in many parts of Eastern Europe by Islamic goups, and shipped into Afghanistan to assist the Taliban. The terrorist forces we face are not only in the region where we fight them. They are an integral element of our domestic populace too. Many disaffected teenagers from the West are finding their way to the training camps in Pakistan and ending up as fighters in Afghanistan. These teenagers were born and raised in the West, but either as a result of radicalization in their community or by economic despair, are joining the worldwide army of terroroists. Some of these, will return to their host country in the West, ready to act as domestic organizers or to undertake domestic terrorist strikes in the West when directed. A failure to understand that a Pashtun tribe member is still a Pashtun and sympathetic to tribal objectives whether he/she resides in Afghanistan, Pakistan or London, is a failure to understand the dimensionality of international terrorism. There are, for further elucidation, more non-Arab Muslims than Arab Muslims in the world, which remains an unknown fact for consideration for many in the West. They are fighting us ‘there’, as that is what they wanted – the agenda they created. They wanted Western military action in sensitive countries so as to further radicalize the populace ‘over there’, but they are supported, and have strike capacities ‘here’ as well. You cannot win a war ‘over there’ without addressing the root causes of radicalization – poverty, incitement, racism and the like – in the West.
MYTH 2 – Military action will end terrorism
A pure military solution is not available – it never has been, and it never can be. Military action is just one of the strategy elements in the war on terror. You can strike at terrorist leadership, cause disruption to their supply chain, destroy their training facilities, and contain their activities through military means. It is not possible to eradicate the enemy in totality. If you take a single US enemy – the Taliban. It is not possible to end the Taliban movement through military means. You cannot kill every member, curtail the ideology or remove their influence in the region. There is the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistan Taliban and more. Military actions can only contain their activity, not end it. You can stop them seizing control of the government of the country, but only then if you commit security forces to the region indefinitely. Unless you undercut the reason for their existence – economically, spiritually and politically – it is a multi generational war that cannot be won by military means. Even Israel, with massive military superiority. a limited geographical representation of its enemy in a territory it can wall in, can’t achieve a military victory. This is not a war you can win by force of arms. This is what infuriated many analysts when President Bush said his famous ‘Mission Accomplished’ line. Experts knew that the mission was not accomplished, it was just beginning as evidenced by the US struggling to formulate its withdrawal 6 years later. Military action lets you limit the effectiveness of an enemy but it cannot remove the threat in totality.
MYTH 3 - Terrorists are a third world rabble
The Mumbai attacks alone should put an end to this fallacy. A complex military style raid using GPS, satellite positioning devices, Google Earth, the Internet, and real time command and situation reports from web sites such as ‘Twitter’. As we have already shown, many terrorists are both staffed and aided by sophisticated Western based groups. They have access to the most sophisticated technology and weaponry. The image of the man in the turban and robe in a cave may well represent an Afghan fighter, but not their leader. They have informants and personnel in place in many of the world’s intelligence services, a good example being Pakistan’s. They are receivingaccess to the same briefing materials as our own intelligence services. They have regular and irregular communication channels through web sites, mosques and social groups. Their command structure has inbuilt security cell, fail-proof organizational design. They are also capable of learning, as the Taliban did from Al Qaeda’s experiences in Iraq. The Taliban harries NATO supply lines, uses mobility and urban population camouflage as a regular modus operandi. There is coordination across border, region and multiple conflict points. This is not a rag tag collection of terrorists, but rather a collaborative and highly strategic foe. An underestimation of their strategic capabilities could well be a fatal error.
MYTH 4 – Military, economic measures and diplomacy are not connected
The biggest fallacy of all – despite the petty political spats between the Departments of State and Defense. If the war cannot be won by military action, then how can victory be achieved? Absolute victory cannot – we will live in a world with terrorists forever. However, through economic sanction and incentive, the US can influence foreign governments. By arms deals and intelligence sharing, the US can create international partners that develop into allies. By coercion and persuasion, foreign governments can be convinced, over time, to limit the safety of sanctuaries on offer to terrorist forces. Through addressing economic and social disparity domestically, it is possible to slow down the rates of ethnic disaffection and the potential for radicalization. These are the policy sets that can limit the danger to the US in both the internal and external dimensions of terrorism. To utilize military action first and foremost, without using the other edge of the diplomatic blade, makes any efforts destined to ineffectiveness.
The last element that will influence the outcome of the war on terror is that old chestnut, ‘moral authority’. The US must act fairly, equitably and with good, transparent governance. It is not by chance that the US became the enemy of the extremist sects from around the world, it was in a reaction to the foreign policies of the US regime. Even Osama Bin Laden said, ‘..we do not hate the West. We did not choose to attack some one like…Sweden. We attacked the US and the US is our enemy.’ These are sobering words. The US needs to amend its policies to deal more equitably with friend, foe and those they are unsure of. A good example at present is Syria. Syria is reaching out to the West, and could be a vital partner in region over the next few years. Europe has reacted – creating intelligence sharing, developing neconomic treaties, and goading Syria away from an iron clad alignment with Iran. The US still refuses to talk to Syria, undertook a blundered and highly tactical attack on Syrian soil, all without understanding the broader strategic impact of this. In the global war against terror, if the US can understand the myths, confront the realities, and deal with the causes not the effects of terrorism, that will be the key to greater and sustainable US security.
