Global war, no, failed states, yes

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

There is no ‘global war on terrorism.’’ That’s the first thing that Anthony Cordesman, a seasoned expert on national security, has to say about the failed Christmas Day bomb-attempt on a U.S.-bound airliner.

Inasmuch as we’ve had Jon Stewart’s take on that attempted terrorism, it seems fitting to make room for a more serious take on a serious problem.

Part of the problem, according to Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the threat that ‘failed states’’ pose to the United States and other world powers.

‘Few talk today about the ‘Global War on Terrorism,’ and few should,’’ Cordesman writes. ‘The phrase was always too broad and too ambiguous, and it implied some kind of unity in the threat that never existed. It is important, however, to look beyond today’s headlines about Yemen and consider the broader range of threats the U.S. now faces on a regional basis.

‘These threats are likely to be lasting enough to be ‘generational’ in character, and to extend well beyond this decade. Moreover, they involve far more than a war on terrorism, and involve a wide mix of insurgencies and state actors using different means and pursuing different goals. They also require wide mix of different U.S. responses -- and often efforts that will last until 2020 and beyond.’’

See Cordesman‘s full essay in The Swamp: ‘Global war, no, failed states, yes’