(Mis)Understanding Terrorism Pt. 2

As discussed in the previous posting, conceptualizing counter-terrorism in terms of a "war" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the threat and can result in policies that are ineffective at increasing national security. In fact, an overly militarized approach to fighting terrorism carries with it a number of serious risks that have the potential to actually worsen the terrorist threat.

First, the absence of easily identifiable and clearly valuable military targets puts pressure on the U.S. government to find other targets against which military operations can be more successfully planned and conducted. Iraq certainly fits this category. Second, the high number of "enemy" and civilian casualties that accompany today’s bombing-intensive military tactics provides a wealth of symbolic resources that terrorists can use to generate renewed support and fresh recruits to their cause. Iraq again provides an unfortunate example. Following the officially declared "end" of hostilities in the Spring of 2003, the presence in Iraq of Islamic terrorists actually increased rather than subsided.

As President Bush rightly, albeit unintentionally, stated just prior to the 2004 Republican convention, a "war" on terrorism is never winnable precisely because the nature of the terrorist enemy denies the possibility that capturing territory, destroying armies or crippling infrastructure – all basic goals in war – will defeat them. What the terrorist threat calls for instead is a more nuanced strategy that combines certain military efforts with simultaneous campaigns on the intelligence, law enforcement, political, economic and even cultural fronts.

Where there are identifiable and clearly valuable terrorist targets that can be destroyed militarily, we should use overwhelming military force in surgical strikes and aggressive attacks with tightly defined objectives. But we also need to build stronger alliances with like-minded nations to use our collective political and economic resources to provide a viable alternative to young Muslims who believe they are living under oppressive conditions. We must begin an aggressive cultural campaign to remake the image of America in the Arab world, which can never happen until we insist on an equitable settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Many Americans would find such suggestions offensive because they imply that we are partially responsible for terrorism. Until we acknowledge that our policies, right or wrong, have made some contribution to the conditions that spawn hatred of America, we cannot possibly understand and defeat our terrorist enemies. We did not invade Iraq in order to kill Iraqi civilians, but we cannot deny that our actions caused a significant number of noncombatant deaths in Iraq. Similarly, while our policies in the Middle East are not intended to incite hatred of America and contribute to the conditions that make terrorism possible, we cannot deny those unintended side-effects.

None of this necessarily suggests that we should withdraw our support for Israel or refuse to pursue our interests in the Arab world. But we must understand that we do not execute these policies in a vacuum. Our own actions generate a ripple effect that sometimes advances and sometimes undermines U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world.

I originally posted this entry and the previous one on the nature of the terrorist threat and America's reponse to it on a former, now-defunct blog that I wrote in 2005. I believed it was important to refresh and repost these arguments here given the focus on foreign policy and national security in the current presidential campaign. It is time for us to set aside petty school-yard political attacks and seriously confront the geostrategic challenges we face as a nation. I hope to continue to post entries on these topics in the coming weeks and months and make my own small contribution to the debate.