To achieve this victory over terrorism, we must first understand the foe that we are fighting against. Contrary to popular belief terrorism is not the result of ignorance, poverty, or even the politics of the Untied States within the Middle East, nor is the terrorism in the Middle East a result of a liberal, modernized culture (The United States) clashing with a traditional and conservative culture (The Middle East). As stated by I. Boone of the Claremont Institute, Islamic Terrorists are often, "graduate students with extensive knowledge of the West. Their ideology is a historically rooted view of the nature of Islam and its fundamental and necessary opposition to the Western World's commitment to individual freedom and constitutional democracy." The war between these terrorists is often rooted in their own views on their religion and is not rooted in the ignorance that is so often attributed them.
As given in a brief by Rear Admiral Bill Sullivan, the Vice Director for Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff, RADM Sullivan points out that while we Americans know the enemies beleifs to be misguided, "he is absolutely committed to his cause, his religious ideology successfully attracts recruits, and he has a sufficient population base from which to protract the conflict." These "strengths' of the enemy are compounded by the technological age that we live in; internet, news media, satellite T.V., and cell phones have made it much easier not only for the enemy to communicate but also for their terrorist acts to broadcasted over the world in efforts to instill fear in the populaces that fight terrorism.
This fear is a part of the terrorists strategy; by definition terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. The Islamic Fundamentalists employ this tactic as a means to reach their goals; their goals, as stated by Osama Bin Laden, are to "...incite the Islamic Nation to rise up to liberate its land and to conduct Jihad for the sake of God." This call for Jihad is so dangerous to counter terrorism because it equates war against the west with religious duty. Jihad in the Muslim religion is the struggle to do good, and if the words of Bin Laden inspire a mere fraction of Muslims to take up war against the United States, the results would be devastating. As pointed out by RADM Sullivan, "even support by 1% of the population would equate to over 12 million "enemies"." This is an intimidating figure and as Bernard Lewis says, "if the leaders of Terrorist Islam can persuade the world of Islam to accept their views... a dark future awaits the world."
While the ideals put forth by Osama Bin Laden encapsulate the very fundamental principles that we are fighting in the War on Terror, his capture and/or death would not bring an end to the will of fundamentalists to fight. There are both pros and cons to this fact; pros in that the United States is not limited in its efforts in Afghanistan to a "Hunt for Bin Laden" and can employ most of its efforts in fighting terrorist cells and restoring stability to tribes and regions in Afghanistan, but at the same time this presents a major con: Osama Bin Laden is easily replaceable. As Tom Hayden writes in The Nation, "Today's special operatives may track down and kill Osama bin Laden, as they did Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1967. But the process of revolutionary nationalism will go on under the Taliban or its successors." In the case of the Middle East it is not Che Guevara's revolutionary nationalism that will survive, but Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.
But there is hope; most Muslims reject the terrorists' ideals and beliefs because ironically these ideals often go against the values of the very religion they claim to be defending. As put forth by The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in an article titled, "Not in the Name of Islam" the Council writes, "those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad."
The words of the CAIR should inspire hope in the American people. If the US can create an environment that fosters the ideals of anti-terrorism as practicing true and devout Islam, then Islamic fundamentalism and extremism can be eradicated. The best way to carry out this mission is to win the hearts and minds of the people. As Gen McCrystal, the commander of US forces in Afghaistan, said in an interview on "60 Minutes", "The greatest risk we can accept is to lose the support of the people here. If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful." Gen McCrystal seeks to increase troop deployments in Afghanistan not only to fight Taliban cells, but also to rebuild the country and its economic system. To do that, to create stability, the Afghani people need to feel safe in their homes and free of the Taliban. This is done by having more troops on Afghani soil, not a limited number of troops focusing solely on eliminating Al Qaeda. If the populace percieves the US military force as at war with Islam instead of there to protect the people of Afghanistan, then we are responsible for a situation that will only breed more hatred of the United States and ultimately create more terrorists.
So with more troops in Afghanistan we can not only protect the populace but at the same time tear down the image of the United States as an oppressor of the people, and instead instill into the people the knowledge that our efforts are to protect and restore their nation. By fostering an environment that gives the people more interaction with US troops, we can build rapport and trust, as well as come to a common understanding.
Winning the hearts and minds is indeed how we will win the War Against Terror, but that is only if we employ that strategy with direct military combat. We cannot simply gain the trust of the people of Afghanistan to abandon them to the Taliban once we withdraw from the region. We must simultaneously eradicate terrorist cells, while we eradicate the ideologies that lead to terrorism from the populace. Because this war effort can not be done in the course of a few years, the military has adopted the "Long War" approach in the War on Terror. Our conduct in the Middle East today, if continued, will have a lasting effect on future generations; generations that will be rid of anti-American sentiments, as well as Islamic Fundamentalism and militant extremism.
As pointed out by RADM Sullivan, defeating an ideology takes time. The United States was in a "Cold" and "Hot" War with the USSR for over 43 years to defeat communism, a clashing ideology. In comparison to the US's efforts against communism, violent Islamic based Extremism is potenitally more dangerous and considerable a threat because it claims a religious backing. This combined with the fact that terrorist forces are group based, not state based, makes the War on Terror a more considerable threat than the political ideology of communism.
Opponents of the "Long War" strategy have noble intentions: to end the war quickly and minimize the number of American casualties. But this simply is not possible. The education of the people, stabilization of the region, eradication of extremists, destruction of the fundamentalists's ideologies, and build of trust and rapport with the people is not something that can be done in a few years time. Removal of forces from the War on Terror may allow terrorist the time, security, and location to plan another attack like 9/11 against our nation; the very tragedy that launched the United States War on Terror.
Thank you for the informative and educated post.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are a few things that I must disagreed upon. As long as our country is choosing to fight this battle using mercenaries, also known as Private Military Contractors (PMCs), our chances of successfully winning the hearts of the people are slim to none. We have a system where security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) and Triple Canopy are dangerous missions that require aggressive behavior in the public that destroys public perception of the US. Although obviously the deliberate killing of 17 Iraqis by Blackwater agents is often cited as an anomaly, these are the people who represent us regardless of the fact that a lot of the mercenaries are not American citizens. And since they're not American soldiers, they cannot be held to the same moral standards, but none the less the crimes that they commit in the name of a big pay day go unchecked. Its this sort of behavior that demonizes America and prevents them from acceptable the indoctrination of democracy. And when these crimes go unpunished, it can be seen as our stamp of approval. But as long as the consequences are ignored and PMCs are able to keep the number of troops, the financial cost, and the casualty counts camouflaged and obscured, we will be reliant on them. "The guys who volunteered for Blackwater didn’t go there to build peace-corps girls’ schools, they went to get rich in a free-fire, no-rules (no lag) video game."
And come on, there's no way you could really compare the Cold War to our current occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, it brought about 40 years of fear, but the very distinction as a cold war implies no direct military conflict. There's also a big difference between the tyranny of the Soviet Union and the Jihad justification of terrorist attacks.
And finally, there are costs to war that can't be ignored. The US spends more on defense than all of our "socialist" entitlements combined, and that does not even factor in Private Military spending which usually comes from the general fund. This does not take into consideration the cost of our allies who have supported us throughout our Holy War. We also must consider the collateral damage and loss of civilian lives. And of course, it would be criminal to ignore the injuries, both physical and mental, sustained by our troops during these campaigns. With all of this considered, and the fact we're in the middle of the global recession, we really must consider whether these costs and more that I did not mention are really justified by the mission, which is shrouded in skepticism. If I knew that we were able to eventually squash the threats of Islamic extremists groups in a timely manner, I could further consider it, but there are not definitive indicators that the world is safer today than seven years ago when President Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished!"
I appreciate you taking the time to read this post and value your comment; however, I must disagree with some of the things you have said. As far as PMC's are concerned I completely agree that the actions of those Blackwater guards in September of 2007 severely crippled any gains we had with the populace, however, Congress has passed bills that make all PMC's accountable for their actions in US Courts. The possibility of another tragedy like this happening, as well as the possibility of it going unpunished has been diminished. As for your quote, while the ramblings of Gary Brecher may be entertaining (to some), his rants are some of the most biased, uninformed, and misled writings I have ever read. Most PMC's are ex special forces, the best of the best, and trained professionals, not mindless morons intent on shooting 'ragheads'.
ReplyDeleteAs for the comparison of Cold War strategy with the War on Terror strategy, yes there is a way I can do it, and I did. We look upon history to learn from our mistakes, as well as learn how to adapt to and overcome new threats. As stated in my post the Cold War was against an ideology as is the War Against Terror. There were "Hot Wars" fought during the Cold War years (Proxy wars where the US and USSR would pit their allies against each other, but would not come to direct military conflict: the Iran Iraq War, the Soviet War in Afghanistan.) I agree with you that there is, "a big difference between the tyranny of the Soviet Union and the Jihad justification of terrorist attacks." Just as stated in my post, the claim of religious backing (by the fundamentalists) makes the War on Terror a more considerable threat than the threat of communism during the Cold War.
I understand and sympathize with your concerns for the costs of the war, but these are costs that we must be willing to pay. To quote Osama Bin Laden, "If their economy is destroyed, they will be busy with their own affairs rather than enslaving the weak peoples. It is very important to concentrate on hitting the US economy through all possible means." Bin Laden's message is clear: if the extremists are able to cripple the US's economy, our ability and will to fight will be crippled as well, and the insurgents will expose the US for the "paper tiger" they believe it to be. While you may see the US's mission in the War on Terror as shrouded in skepticism, to me it is quite clear: To defeat militant Islamic based extremism and restore stability to the regions that suffer under fundamentalist regimes in order to keep our country safe. To do that we fight the Long War.
I disagree that Osama bin Laden is somebody who can be easily replaced. I do agree that the ideology is what is followed, but you have to have a central figure that everybody looks up to for the cause. Removing bin Laden from a place of power would be a devastating blow to their leadership structure and hierarchy, and perhaps send the Al Qaida organization into chaos. I also think it would be a huge sign of progress for Americans and those fighting the war on terror. There would be concrete evidence that progress is being made, and that might drastically improve approval ratings.
ReplyDeleteAs for terrorists themselves, seeing their figurehead and leader be captured and removed might very well signal to them that they are losing the war. A loss of momentum and second-thoughts about their ability to win the war can all be caused my Osama's capture. I agree with you that you must defeat the ideology and their way of thinking, but I think Osama's capture is the most significant step in accomplishing that goal.