A recent report by RAND concluded that the administration's war on terrorism has not significantly degraded al-Qaeda and that the group has morphed into a more formidable enemy.
Many opponents of the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq have always argued that this conflict is an irrelevant and even counterproductive sideshow to the real "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan. In fact, Barack Obama led the parade to initiate a troop surge in Afghanistan after having opposed it in Iraq. The more hawkish John McCain, not to be outdone by a weak-kneed Democrat, proposed that even more troops be sent to Afghanistan. In American politics after 9/11, it seems that candidates have to support some sort of war or they will be perceived as being too wimpy to get elected.
Only a small minority of foreign policy gadflies has doubted whether any war on terrorism is needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Now a new report by RAND, the government's own captive think tank, supports this small band of renegades. The study, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qaeda," written by terrorism experts Seth Jones and Martin Libicki, followed more than 600 terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, over the long-term. The report concluded that the administration's war on terrorism has not significantly degraded al-Qaeda and that the group has morphed into a more formidable enemy. In fact, al-Qaeda has perpetrated more attacks after September 11, 2001 than before it.
RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders. This task is best carried out, according to the study, by law enforcement, intelligence, and, if needed, troops from the local country. Instead of giving terrorists the exalted status of warriors, they should be deemed criminals. In other words, the authors conclude that in most past cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated by getting their leaders, local law enforcement did the job. They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. forces on Muslim soil can create more terrorists to fight; thus the authors argue that the U.S. military should confine itself to training the locals.
It is nice when government-paid researchers can provide empirical data to confirm what should have been obvious to any informed citizen years ago! After a major terrorist crime, such as the one on 9/11, the objective should be to get the perpetrators. The U.S. government should not militarily invade countries and try to change their form of government, economic system or money-making activities (for example, growing opium). This applies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
It might be nice to have free market economies and democratic governments in these remote places, but it is a diversion from the main show: getting the terrorist leaders. The niggling fact is that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and their merry band of followers are not likely to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in Pakistan.
So the United States must convince the local government in Pakistan to apprehend them. Right now, some in the Pakistani intelligence service, with close ties to Islamist militants in the Taliban, probably know where they are hiding. But as long as these outlaws are on the loose, the government of Pakistan pockets billions per year in U.S. military and economic aid. So the Pakistanis have no incentive to get the al-Qaeda leaders.
The United States should give up the losing nation-building distraction in Afghanistan (as well as in Iraq) and offer to withdraw NATO forces from that country, thus letting the resurgent Pashtun allies of Pakistani intelligence services — the Taliban — take over the eastern and southern parts of the Afghan landscape. Pakistan has long wanted influence in neighboring Afghanistan and wholeheartedly supported the Taliban rulers of that country before 9/11. In return, for increased influence in Afghanistan through its Taliban proxy, Pakistan would have to find the al-Qaeda leadership and turn it over to the United States. (If a stick is needed, the U.S. could threaten to cut off the billions in military and economic aid Pakistan receives if the Pakistanis do not produce the al-Qaeda chieftains.)
Although the Taliban were harsh rulers of Afghanistan, the U.S. has few other options to motivate the Pakistani government to fork over the al-Qaeda kingpins, which still threaten the U.S. homeland. As harsh as they are, the Taliban don't so threaten the United States. The counterproductive war on terrorism must end and we must motivate the local Pakistani government to catch the criminals that are harbored in its midst.
One thing I have never understood about this argument is the idea of creating terrorists. We were attacked in New York. We went to Afghanistan and Iraq. Then the “creating terrorists” idea began to circulate. The story was that bad guys were flooding into Iraq. Let’s imagine that a group of motorcycle bums brought down the Twin Towers. We find out that they are from LA, so we go to LA and start killing them. All the motorcycle bums from around the world flock to LA to join the fight and we kill them. Some guys that normally ride in pickups, bicycles, and skateboards decide to buy a Harley and join the fight. True, it would be a mess in LA, but we have NOT created any more bad guys, we just bunched them up in one place and whacked them. If I’m a New Yorker, I’m happy that they are getting whacked in LA and the war is not in my backyard.
Why doers anyone take anything this guys says seriously? All he does is write the same article over and over again.
Terrorist groups will thrive as long as there is a steady stream of willing footsoldiers. You may be able to demoralize these groups in the short term by capturing or killing leaders, but the power vacuum is usually filled very quickly. If you cannot elevate the standard of living for the average person in the region then the threat of terrorism will continue to be very real. They have much more to die for than to live for. The nation building effort in Iraq will pay dividends in the long run if the nation is built on a free market democracy. Hopefully, Iraq will serve as a flagship in bringing democracy and capitalism to the region. This cannot be done however without directly addressing other hotspots of terrorist activity in the region.
I am not sure why this concept of creating more terrorists continues. There is a solution which is somewhat stone aged in its approach but very effective. Stop acting like we have been and attack the terrorist as soon as they are detected and do it without regard to other casualties. After a period of time the local citizenry will realize that harboring and supporting the terrorists is not in their best interests.
We proved in Viet Nam that being nice and respecting human life and historic or religious artifacts was a losing strategy. We continue to prove this losing strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Should we be there yes, beats fighting in NYC or LA. Should we stop being gentlemanly too? Yes.
What happened to gentlemanly conduct or the knights honor code? They found out that they lost therefore a change was necessary. The old saw is true…”War is Hell”.
Mr. Eland I disagree with you on every point that you have made.
I have read IC for a long time, but have never left a comment since somebody else usually beats me to my point, but I have to say something here…
Of course there have been more Al Qaeda attacks since 9/11-we’re fighting a friggin’ war with them!!!! DUH!!! But there have been no attacks on US soil, and only a dolt would believe its because they haven’t been trying. Iraq is certainly a distraction in this war, but not for the US. It’s for Al Qaeda- they’ve been fighting us there, not here.
And for someone to suggest that we can convince Pakistan or any other country in the region to arrest terrorists and turn them over to us is ludacris. And allowing a resurgent Taliban?? What is this guy smoking.
crash: You need to comment more often. That was a great common sense synopsis of what I feel as well.
I can kind of agree with a portion of your article.
One thing I’ve never understood is why we gave all that money-I think it was around a billion dollars- to Pakistan. It was kind of a slap in the face to our ally, and their enemy, India.
We know Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which if I’m not mistaken aids Al-Qaeda, is in waziristan and the mountains that border Afghanistan and Iraq, but we have so few troops there, and sluggish if any assistance from Pakistan.
It’s a country whose own government can’t seem to get a long with itself. There’s some infighting among the various tribes and ethnic groups. It seems to me that if you were to invest in a company, you don’t pick the one with unstable leadership and whose employees are on strike.
I don’t know, I just think maybe we should have told Pakistan to get to work before we handed them a paycheck.
Maybe I’m mistaken.