I was against this war, believing that it would be much more difficult than its advocates predicted and that it would take a large toll on U.S. foreign policy at a moment in history when the United States had a tremendous opportunity to shape the international order. (R. Haass, TPM, June 9)

Beyond the "toll on U.S. foreign policy": When the pursuit of national security produces urban insecurity.

Yes, I agree the Iraq war took "a large toll on US foreign policy." But at no point in your post do you mention the toll of the Iraq war on civilian populations once the 6 week aerial bombing was completed. Asymmetric war (conventional army against armed insurgents) puts the national security paradigm on its head: pursuing national security now becomes the making of urban insecurity. We already knew this from the Vietnam war. Did this at all enter into the picture when evaluating the Iraq invasion, or for that matter the current escalation in Afghanistan-Pakistan? After Vietnam and a few other wars since then, did the US military forces really think that aerial bombing would do the job and no major civilian losses would ensue from asymmetric warfare in the cities of Iraq?

Cities worldwide are becoming a key theater for asymmetric war, regardless of what side of the divide they are on - allies or enemies. The traditional security paradigm based on national state security does not accommodate this triangulation. What may be good to protect the national state apparatus may go at a high (increasingly high) price to major cities and their people.

The U.S.Department of State's Annual Report on Global Terrorism allows us to establish that today, cities are the key targets for terror attacks, a trend that began before the September 2001 attacks on New York. From 1993 to 2000, cities accounted for 94% of the injuries resulting from all terrorist attacks, and for 61% of the deaths. Secondly, in this period the number of incidents doubled, rising especially sharply after 1998. In contrast, in the 1980s hijacked airplanes accounted for a larger share of terrorist deaths and destruction than they did in the 1990s.

The city becomes a technology of war for armed insurgencies. The physical and human features of the city are an obstacle for conventional armies. The exception is when the intention is to destroy a whole city: Dresden and Hiroshima are today the iconic cases.

I wonder how much longer our leadership can continue to avoid this nasty triangulation of asymmetric war. We cannot simply go bomb Baghdad and bomb the Swat Valley and pretend that this is the theater of war. Lahore, Madrid...they also become theaters of war.

**
Saskia Sassen is professor at Columbia University. Her most recent book is Territory, Authority, Rights (Princeton 2008). Her website is here.