It is sad to admit it, but terrorism more than anything else seems to be the defining attribute of the 21st century so far. While the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, provide the most extreme instance of terrorist violence in history, the first few years of this century have witnessed many massive acts of terrorism, from Bali to Spain to Russia.
The response of the Bush administration has been to launch a massive “war” on terror that began with the invasion of Afghanistan and the dismantling of al Qaeda’s infrastructure there. The war on terror eventually encompassed a broad range of U.S. initiatives, including actions as diverse as international intelligence and law enforcement efforts targeted against suspected terrorists, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other dramatic changes to the U.S. government, but the emphasis and focus has always been on military tools.
The Bush administration even placed its invasion of Iraq under the umbrella “war on terror” term, despite the absence of any credible ties between Iraq and active terrorist organizations. In today’s political rhetoric, any potential threat to the United States that is even loosely related to the Islamic world or a non-governmental entity is made to fit into the global terrorist threat catch-all.
The Bush administration’s behavior and its public statements about terrorism and other threats reveal some fundamental misunderstandings that doom our nation and our allies to continued terrorist attacks and failed policies in places like Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Talking about terrorism in terms of “war” reveals a dramatically inaccurate assessment of the enemy. Much like the British during the American Revolution and the United States in Vietnam, the Bush administration is thinking about terrorists as conventional enemies that can be engaged in a military conflict in which the stronger side will prevail. But even more so than guerrilla warriors throughout history, terrorists are difficult to find and isolate. In a new twist on this old theme, terrorists are driven by an ideology of hate and a murderous ethic that respects no national boundaries and is difficult to define geographically.
President Bush and other administration officials periodically pay lip-service to this amorphous nature of our terrorist enemies, but the administration’s actions seem more aligned to a conflict with a conventional opponent. By treating the struggle against terrorism as a war, we are misconstruing the nature of the fight, selecting methods and weapons that are poorly matched to the situation and the enemy and using our nation’s vast resources ineffectively. Our error is compounded when we disingenuously incorporate actions like the invasion of Iraq into the “war on terror” in a bid for sustained public support when such campaigns are at most only indirectly related to defeating terrorism.
In my next posting, I will explore the specific ways in which the “war” label in the context of counter-terrorism leads to policy choices that ultimately work in opposition to the stated objective of ending the threat of terrorism.
The response of the Bush administration has been to launch a massive “war” on terror that began with the invasion of Afghanistan and the dismantling of al Qaeda’s infrastructure there. The war on terror eventually encompassed a broad range of U.S. initiatives, including actions as diverse as international intelligence and law enforcement efforts targeted against suspected terrorists, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other dramatic changes to the U.S. government, but the emphasis and focus has always been on military tools.
The Bush administration even placed its invasion of Iraq under the umbrella “war on terror” term, despite the absence of any credible ties between Iraq and active terrorist organizations. In today’s political rhetoric, any potential threat to the United States that is even loosely related to the Islamic world or a non-governmental entity is made to fit into the global terrorist threat catch-all.
The Bush administration’s behavior and its public statements about terrorism and other threats reveal some fundamental misunderstandings that doom our nation and our allies to continued terrorist attacks and failed policies in places like Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Talking about terrorism in terms of “war” reveals a dramatically inaccurate assessment of the enemy. Much like the British during the American Revolution and the United States in Vietnam, the Bush administration is thinking about terrorists as conventional enemies that can be engaged in a military conflict in which the stronger side will prevail. But even more so than guerrilla warriors throughout history, terrorists are difficult to find and isolate. In a new twist on this old theme, terrorists are driven by an ideology of hate and a murderous ethic that respects no national boundaries and is difficult to define geographically.
President Bush and other administration officials periodically pay lip-service to this amorphous nature of our terrorist enemies, but the administration’s actions seem more aligned to a conflict with a conventional opponent. By treating the struggle against terrorism as a war, we are misconstruing the nature of the fight, selecting methods and weapons that are poorly matched to the situation and the enemy and using our nation’s vast resources ineffectively. Our error is compounded when we disingenuously incorporate actions like the invasion of Iraq into the “war on terror” in a bid for sustained public support when such campaigns are at most only indirectly related to defeating terrorism.
In my next posting, I will explore the specific ways in which the “war” label in the context of counter-terrorism leads to policy choices that ultimately work in opposition to the stated objective of ending the threat of terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment