Rethinking the war on terrorism

» Discuss Article    (11 Comments)

Hugh,

Thugs and murderers Osama bin Laden and associates are. But rulers of powerful, militarized nation-states they are not. Defeating such terrorists requires targeting everything from ideology to personnel to finances. Military action is most useful where terrorists gain de facto control of a government, as in Afghanistan.

That always should have been America's primary military deployment in the war on terrorism. Sensitive politically but important operationally is hot pursuit into Pakistan. If Pakistan is unable or unwilling to suppress Al Qaeda and Taliban forces - and Islamabad has never really controlled the border area - the U.S. needs to do so.

The U.S. military also can play a small but sometimes critical role in training allied forces. The Philippines is a semi-failed state, but U.S. assistance appears to have improved the performance of the Filipino military in confronting Islamic guerrillas.

Where the U.S. military should not be is Iraq. Every invasion rationale was flawed. Saddam Hussein did not participate in 9/11. There were no WMD. There was no evidence that Baghdad could not be deterred. Instead of ongoing genocide to stop, there was sectarian conflict to unleash.

After more than four years, the Iraqis have proved unwilling to create what Washington desired: a united and liberal Iraq aligned with the West against neighboring states targeted by the U.S., most notably Iran and Syria.

Of course, it is much harder to get out than get in. Which offers an important lesson for future military action: Do not put U.S. lives, honor and prestige on the line for less than vital interests.

This is also the most important lesson of previous debacles, such as Lebanon. Bin Laden might have perceived weakness in America's withdrawal, but why were U.S. forces there in the first place?

Washington intervened in a bloody, multi-sided civil war. It should surprise no one that U.S. Marines became targets.

In response, American ships and aircraft bombarded Muslim positions. What more should President Reagan have done? Backed his favorite faction and tried to rebuild Lebanon? The mind boggles.

Rethinking commitments would provide the Pentagon with more manpower. The problem is too many missions, not too few people.

The U.S. is secure against traditional threats, accounting for roughly half of the globe's military spending and far outranging any potential competitor. But Washington foolishly tries to micromanage international events.

America continues to garrison Europe against phantom threats, defend prosperous South Korea from its decrepit northern neighbor, and protect Japan, which possesses the world's second-largest economy. Washington attempts to build nations in Iraq and Kosovo.

Extra Pentagon personnel already are present. The U.S. government simply needs to decide that defeating the Taliban is more important than, say, relieving South Korea of the burden of defending itself.

Dire new threats may eventually arise, but today terrorism is America's most pressing military concern. And the epicenter of potential terrorism against the U.S. is Afghanistan and Pakistan. Which is where we should concentrate our military efforts.

Doug Bandow is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance. A former special assistant to President Reagan, he is the author of "Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire"

---