Waking Up to the Long War
Today's news about the foiled terrorist plot against U.S.-bound planes from the UK is yet another reminder, if one were needed, that we are in a long war, a war that will define the lives of my generation, as the Cold War did that of the previous generation.
The threat is real and deep. The solutions are murky, and frustrating. We already nearly disrobe at airports nowadays--now, we are also going to have to give up carrying infant formula, water, and other beverages on board planes--for who knows how long.
The problem is that phrase "who knows how long". These inconveniences are, of course, worthwhile to quell a deadly threat. But we are in a battle against a nihilistic, death-desiring enemy, and it is likely to last for decades. The measures we use to fight must similarly be engineered to stand the test of time.
In the wake of September 11, the border closures we instituted amounted, in economic terms, to launching an embargo against ourselves. Our legal system has also failed to keep up with the challenge: we have thousands imprisoned in Guantanamo who, according to intelligence analysts who have worked there as translators , are of negligible to no threat whatsoever. In Iraq, a friend in the Defense Intelligence Agency who processed prisoners in the Sunni triangle described a typical raid in which any male in the vicinity of a target was taken in and immediately imprisoned for months--with no proof, and over the protestation of the DIA. Innocent men who did not enter prison as security threats could well exit after months of anger and resentment, as suicide bombers.
We are in a long term war, and we must start thinking long term. We must invest in more creative ways to protect our security than simple military build-up, which can do little, after all, against beverages on airplanes, homemade bombs on public transit, and a growing ideology of hate. We must find ways to reconcile better security measures with the civil liberties, freedoms, and values that are, in the end, what we are fighting for. And we must acknowledge that there is patriotism on both sides of the political aisle--but precious little room for crucial creative national security thought in the current, McCarthy-esque atmosphere.
I'm sorry, but it's patently ridiculous to equate the threat of Communism and terrorism. Communism had 300 million people, a multi-million member army, thousands of nuclear weapons, and a vast array of satellite states at its disposal. al-Qaeda is a tiny fringe militant group with a few thousand members, tops, that will likely never top 9/11, and that will in all likelihood never have access to a nuke. Read James Fallows' latest piece in The Atlantic. You'll learn a lot.
August 10, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still "talkin' 'bout my generation?"
Today's news about the foiled terrorist plot against U.S.-bound planes from the UK is yet another reminder, if one were needed, that we are in a long war, a war that will define the lives of my generation, as the Cold War did that of the previous generation.
Only if you let it.
August 10, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone knows how hotheaded and indignant many Americans get about illegal aliens coming across the US border from Mexico. The thought is they take our jobs and drive up public costs.
Yet we cannot understand that many in the Middle East might get even more angry when we invade their country, bombing, killing thousands, torturing, jailing them, then take over the country and fail grossly at providing basic security.
The 'war' will continue till Americans 'get it'.
August 10, 2006 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, all this talk about a "Long War" sounds like a nice way to justify a military budget that exceeds that of all the other nations of the world combined.
And ironically, no multibillion dollar missle system is going to deter a whacky guy with a shoe bomb.
Our politicians have declared "wars" on poverty, illiteracy and drug use, and just look how we've won those wars.
Not.
No, what's going to define my generation is how our gov't used the pretext of terrorism to violate international law and totally destory the constitutional system, giving rise to a crypto-Fascist dossier-state.
August 11, 2006 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me pile on to add that the writer is making a ridiculous mistake. No war here -- there's a problem of small stateless groups who want to kill people. Numerous societies have overcome such threats. This only happens if a) you understand the causes, b) remedy what can be remedied, c) provide alternative paths to the alienated and d) then use law enforcement controls on the small residue. That is: do the absolute opposite of what our rulers are doing.
Can It Happen Here?
August 11, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Read James Fallows' latest piece in The Atlantic. You'll learn a lot."
She should also read Ted G. Carpenter's blog post on the ridiculousness of drawing a parallel between the Cold War and the "War on Terror":
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/11/lieberman-mangles-history-%e2%80%94-again/#more-694
August 11, 2006 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare you! We want some glory, too.
Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo! The Truman Project to the rescue -- forever.
August 11, 2006 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, we are not dealing with a nihilistic enemy. To say so is just intellectual laziness. We are dealing with enemies who have beliefs and goals. This enemy has been quite specific about what the goals are, and has presented a program that has attracted many recruits.
If by our actions we recruit more foot soldiers for the other side than we capture or kill, we lose.
It is traditional for the neocons and the liberal hawks to bully anyone who points out that people attracted to the jihadists have legitimate beefs. That's crimethink; we must claim instead that the terrorists are purely evil subhumans desiring only death.
August 12, 2006 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tragedy is that the author's premise might become relevant in time, if our "long war" continues to impact an ever-greater number of these "stateless groups." While we can appeal to and transform most of the small, largely non-radicalized groups in the mideast through positive efforts, I can see many finding common cause against us if we continue to wreak such indiscriminate havoc in the region.
Jan, I think D is the main issue, and points out what Rachel is missing: the logic of war is a thin excuse to justify actions outside the rule of law. We need to be promoting justice in the middle east, not inventing reasons for war out of whole cloth.
August 13, 2006 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our enemies are not subhumans. Nor the vast millions who live in the middle east whose ambitions are unrelated to the west's interests in the region. This "existential / nihilistic / fascistic" business is a dehumanizing tactic that has its ideological roots in the very worst the 20th century had to offer. No thank you.
By the way, a couple observations:
I've seen a couple of these kind of "read so and so, you might learn something" comments on Rachel's articles, which are so common on (and exclusive to) female-written political blogs, that I feel like it should be called out. It's a cheap macho putdown, and it lowers the whole discussion - just by looking at her profile, she clearly knows something.
That said, it'd be a much more valuable exchange if you took part in the comments, Rachel.
August 13, 2006 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Joe. You are completely right on nihilistic which means the belief in nothing. Definitely, these folks have a pretty strong sense of beliefs.
On your second point--that this is not a zero sum war, but a war where we can create new enemies by our missteps--right again. The Washington Post this weekend had a terrific memo circulating throughout NCOs in the military where they are trying to get that point across in Afghanistan.
Your third point, however, is a bit sketchy. A claim such as "Israel treats Palestinians poorly" is a legitimate beef that can and should be dealt with. A belief that women are worth far less than men, that a midieval code of sharia law should be implemented by force, that unbelievers are haram and can and should be killed, based on the decisions of any self-appointed theological leader--these are not ideas that are worth debating. They are simply ideas that must be stopped by anyone who wants to live in a liberal world.
Moreover, there is a very real cult of death among jihadist terrorists, and we ignore it at our own expense. Enemies like North Korea do not want to die. Enemies like suicide bombers are, at best, indifferent to the fact of their deaths. And they do not place any value whatsoever on innocent life--even that of other Muslims (who were in the World Trade Center, and presumably flying on the targeted planes). You don't have to be subhuman to desire the death of others--that is an all too human trait. But it is one that requires rather special attention, to say the least.
Director, Truman National Security Project
www.trumanproject.org
August 14, 2006 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We use "war" as a way of showing vast national purpose--i.e. Johnson's "war on poverty". Our wars, until George Bush got a hold of them, were fought within the rule of law--that is why we have the Geneva Conventions and other rules governing how to fight--not to mention a Constitution to ensure the rule of law at home.
The problem is not with America fighting a long war against a real enemy--it is with George Bush and an Administration that does not believe in the rule of law at home or abroad fighting a war outside of those rules. There, I agree 100%.
Fighting the current long war obviously requires 90% non-military work--foremost among those tasks are building opportunity in the Middle East (which requires nudging the authoritarian governments who like to keep the cookie jar to themselves); and building opportunity and reducing racism in Europe, where terrorism experts see our major threat as coming from.
War has never required a state-based enemy--that's a realist fallacy. The American Revolution was not state against state, nor was the French Revolution, nor were guerrilla conflicts such as Vietnam or the wars to end colonial occupation. What war does require is an enemy who wants to kill you. And that, unfortunately, we have.
Director, Truman National Security Project
www.trumanproject.org
August 14, 2006 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to object to your depiction of the American revolution (and to a degree, the French Revolution). The war for independance of the English colonies began with the formation of governments independant of the crown, complete with armed forces. The alliance of these states then claimed territory from the English, and the war was their way of resolving the issue.
The French revolution doesn't apply, as it also involved the army turning against itself as soldiers chose sides. It hardly even classifies as a war (well, until the Austrians and the other European monarchies invaded, mainly out of fear that the new French rulers would export their radicalism to their feifdoms).
Even your mention of Vietnam is a mistake, as it was a war not only against a guerilla movement, but mainly a war between the two states of North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Even guerilla wars are interested in controlling territory, setting up their own government after the "oppressor" has been driven out. We talk about rebels controlling parts of Nepal, or Sri Lanka, or Colombia, or the Congo.
The "war on terror" isn't a war, because it involves seperate conflicts that are only loosely linked to one another. There is the occupation of Iraq, but also the fight against the terrorist organisation known as Al Qaeda, which includes a war to defend the current Afghan government from the former allies of AQ, the Taliban.
I refuse to accept your dilutement of the phrase "war". Even your attempt to draw on LBJ's "War on Poverty" reveals that you don't mean war in the classical sense, a conflict with a clearly defined opponent. You might as well call it a struggle, and in Arabic I believe "struggle" translates to "jihad"...
August 15, 2006 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The third point that you debate is more one of human psychology: you rightly point out the offensive parts of the Islam-based cult that Al Qaeda is, but ignore the way they are sold as part of a complete package. People start listening because of dissatisfaction, and if they are hear only one alternative then they can be seduced.
The thing is, you can't ignore the rhetorical battle, and you can't offer only one alternative. Terrorists and other Fundamentalists are the spiritual equivalent of the "get rich quick" scheme, criminals out to fleece their flocks for personal glory. It's always the footsoldier that sacrifices his life as the leader relaxes in his lair. But the fundamentalists in our midst, the born-agains and the hardcores, refuse to use this rhetorical attack, knowing full well it will reflect their own blemishes.
August 15, 2006 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth remembering that the theoreticians that formed the conceptual framework for al-Qaeda, Abdullah Azzam and Sayyid Qutb, are mid- to late-twentieth century figures. Qutb was executed by Egypt in 1965, and Azzam was killed by a 1989 car bombing. There's an erroneous belief that these goals go back to the origins of Islam. One might make a case for the Mahdists of the late 19th century, but the aggressive conquest for the Caliphate simply is not ancient. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes
August 15, 2006 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your third point, however, is a bit sketchy. A claim such as "Israel treats Palestinians poorly" is a legitimate beef that can and should be dealt with. A belief that women are worth far less than men, that a medieval code of sharia law should be implemented by force, that unbelievers are haram and can and should be killed, based on the decisions of any self-appointed theological leader--these are not ideas that are worth debating. They are simply ideas that must be stopped by anyone who wants to live in a liberal world.
It sounds like you are recommending some sort of liberal holy war. How is it exactly that we are supposed "stop" these ideas? Ideas inhabit people's minds, and our power to "stop" the ones we don't like is highly limited. We can reason in a limited way with those whose minds are open to the premises we both accept, but otherwise we simply have to deal with the fact that the world will always be filled with people who hold ideas that are deeply hostile to some of the things we value most, and some of the things we believe most deeply.
And since when is it is it a component of the liberal tradition that we should be engaged in constant struggle to "stop" bad ideas, and convert the minds and souls of our fellow man to right thinking?
If a Muslim believes that I am haram because I am an unbeliever, that is his business. If he believes he should kill me for that reason, and attempts to act on this belief, the it is my business. Let's just focus on defending our own rights to live the kind of life we want, and leacve it to Muslims to determine among themselves what kind of life they want.
August 15, 2006 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This UK plot is beginning to sound more and more like the Miami plot in America.
It is simply unnerving how similiar they are in terms of what they lack.
In the UK, they have no bombs, no airline tickets and no passports for the suspects. And have noted that the UK passport efficiency is such that they would not be able to board a plane for at least a year.
So this 'rush to thwart' a terrorist plot is beginnign to sound just like the major network announcements about the Miami terrorists.
The only news is that both plots were major network news and and time is showing there is nothing other than a 'big TERROR ALERTannouncement'.
Bush and Blair have this down to a science, it seems, whenever either of they are down in the domestic polls...send up a terror alert.
It is quite sickening actually.
It reminds me of that old saying...
If you cannot dazzle them with brillance..baffle them with bullshyt.
August 18, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink