–Richard Haass
Of all the mistakes the Bush Administration has made, their most most historically significant error may have been the elevation of terrorism from the mundane purview of criminal justice to the status of a “war” that requires the engagement of the full force and might of the United States military.
Identifying, tracking and defeating terrorists requires the surgical precision of intelligence operations, not the heavy cudgel of carpet bombs and special forces. We have proof of this now in Iraq. Using the military to fight terrorism only serves to breed more terrorists.
The president’s motives in re-casting the fight against terror as a “war” are clear: He wanted to become, as he put it, “a war president.” During war-time, presidents can claim nearly dictatorial privileges, and war presidents are harder to defeat in elections.
In that sense, the president’s war on terror has been a rousing political success — for President Bush. With the assistance of a pliable Republican Congress and the dimwitted, self-absorbed Washington press corps, he has accrued unprecedented powers for the Executive and won two elections — so far.
But by aggrandizing himself as a warrior president, George Bush also raised the profile of our enemies both as specters of fear for Americans and as heroes among their own people. The moment the president declared his war on terror Osama bin Ladin and his ilk were promoted from the ranks of criminal thugs into a new class of global warriors who became worthy adversaries of the world’s last remaining Superpower.
Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a former high-level State Dept. staffer in the administrations of both Pres. Bush 41 and 43, published an op-ed piece last week calling for an end to the marketing of the fight against terror as “war.” His article is remarkable because it answers the Republicans’ catcall that no one has a better plan than the failed policies of the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress.
If you want solid answers on how to fight the rise in terrorism from the Islamic underground, here is Richard Haass’ plan:
First, we must drop the metaphor of a “war on terrorism.” Wars are mostly fought with arms on battlefields between soldiers of opposing countries. Wars have beginnings and ends. None of these characteristics apply here. Terrorism can now be carried out with boxcutters and airplanes as easily as with explosives. Office buildings and commuter trains and coffee shops are today’s battlefields. There are no uniforms, and often those doing the killing are acting in the name of causes or movements. And there is no end in sight. To the contrary, terrorism is now part of the fabric of contemporary life.
Another reason to jettison the martial vocabulary is that terrorism cannot be defeated by arms alone. Indeed, other instruments of policy, including intelligence, police work and diplomacy, are likely to play a larger part in any effective policy.
Second, we must distinguish between existing and potential terrorists. Existing terrorists need to be stopped before they act; failing that, societies need to protect themselves and have ready the means of reducing the consequences of successful attacks. But much more than that can — and should — be done to persuade young men and women not to become terrorists in the first place. The aim must be to create an environment in which terrorism is seen as neither acceptable nor necessary.
Third, terrorism must be stripped of its legitimacy; those carrying it out must be shamed. No political cause justifies the taking of innocent life. Arab and Muslim leaders need to make this clear, be it in public pronouncements by politicians, lectures by teachers or fatwas by leading clerics. The initial critical reaction of several Arab governments to Hezbollah’s kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is a sign that such criticism is possible, as are selective comments by some Muslim religious leaders.
Fourth, terrorism must be stripped of its motivation. This translates into the United States and others spelling out the gains Palestinians can expect in a peace agreement with Israel and what Sunnis and Shiites can reasonably expect in Iraq’s new political order. Bringing about a lasting cease-fire in Lebanon will also help calm the emotions that will lead some to become terrorists and others to tolerate or support them.
The way ahead is clear: vigilance against violence coupled with political possibility. Such a counter-terrorism policy will not eliminate the scourge of terrorism any more than modern medicine can eliminate disease. But it does hold out the promise of reducing it to a scale that will not threaten the openness, security or prosperity of modern societies.
So far, this cogent analysis has gone unnoticed in the mainstream media — except on C-SPAN, where the article has been the subject of two segments on “Washington Journal,” including a half-hour interview with Haass this morning.
If you want an example of how terrorism can be defeated, look at Ireland. Despite more than a century of bloody engagement, the British did not vanquish the Irish with bombs or guns. It was economic development, created largely by educating the populace, that led to their cessation of hostilites.
Republicans don’t like to hear it but the plain fact is, we can never win a “war” on terror — anymore than we could win a war on drugs or poverty. The solution is in education and prosperty.
