by
Robert M Brown
The United States has been roused to war as it has not been in nearly sixty years. It remains to be seen how long this enthusiasm will last in a dirty war fought mostly in the shadows, under heavy secrecy, and how much this war will hurt us as a society. On this page I intend to address a few issues surrounding this war, and how things look to me right now (September 22, 2001). I may add another page with periodic notes on events as they develop.
There are a lot of what I think are misconceptions floating around out there, the most odious of which is the idea that America 'had it coming' when terrorists crashed jumbo jets into the World Trade Center. Leaving aside the fact that about a third of the casualties in the attacks were not even Americans, the idea is ludicrous on the face of it. For one thing, since no group has claimed credit for the attacks, and no demands have been made, any statements about the terrorists' motives are only guesses; we don't really know what they were trying to accomplish, because they won't tell us. This leads me to think that there are no concessions we can make that would prevent future attacks. If the group (or groups) in question did have legitimate grievances, they could have pursued those grievances through other channels. Giving in to any demands by them now would only validate terror as a successful way of forcing America to do something, and ensure more attacks in the future.
Other people are saying that this is a war that we cannot win; that if we use violence in striking back at the terrorists, we will only make them angrier at us, and they will strike back at us even harder, in an unending cycle of violence. This is true as far as it goes; if we strike at the terrorists, they will hit back at us. Of course, if we don't strike at the terrorists they will still hit back at us. Not responding strongly only tells the terrorists that they can attack us with impunity. That is the message we have been sending, with our lack of response to terrorist attacks in the past decade, and 7000 dead in the rubble of New York is the reward for our restraint.
The same people usually add that innocents would inevitably be killed in any retaliation, and that would make us morally no better than the terrorists we condemn. They miss the point of intent; the terrorists are trying to slaughter innocents; that is their entire effort. When we respond, some innocents in the area of the terrorists may be killed in spite of our best efforts, but if the terrorists are stopped by that action, it may save more lives in the future.
The 1986 bombing of Libya roused the exact same protests. But look at the results; while Libya is hardly a model nation, they have clamped down on Islamic radical elements, and dramatically scaled back, if not stopped, their support of international terrorism. The method may have been unpleasant to some people, but the strikes worked. That is more than can be said of the more moderate efforts of more recent times.
Yet another mantra being repeated is that this is a war that the military has no role in; there are no enemy military bases to bomb, no troop formations to strike, no focus for our retaliation. I will address this in the next section, on what I think should be done.
Finally, there are the people telling us that we must get used to giving up a lot of our freedoms in order to stay safe from future terrorist attacks. If the measures being implemented would have any effect on terrorists, this would be a better argument, but there is no sign of anything that would inconvenience terrorists at all, only American citizens. But most telling is the counter argument, if we give up our freedoms, what are we fighting for?
This will be a long struggle, if we hold onto the national will required to win it. It will be fought in several stages, and on several levels.
First, the diplomatic front. Most of the civilized world is behind us, having suffered from terrorism themselves, in the recent attacks and in years past. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, India, and others, all would be happy to see the scourge of terrorism eliminated. They may not all be willing or able to contribute troops to a military campaign, but that isn't important; the diplomatic and economic weight they carry is of far more importance, as is the behind the scenes contributions they can make through their intelligence and law enforcement communities. Keeping the civilized nations of the world aligned with us, pitching this struggle as a global one against terrorists, will be crucial to winning.
There are other nations, most of them in the Middle East, who are in a much more precarious position. Nations such as Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq may or may not directly support terrorist groups, but all of them have made a certain accommodation with terrorists operating from within their borders. Unlike the European and Asian nations listed above, the countries of the Middle East typically have large radical populations (often refugees from another country, or with cross border tribal ties that further complicate regional politics) sympathetic to the terrorists' stated goals. Taking direct action against these groups, or allowing an outside power freedom to do so, would bring the risk of serious internal unrest to these countries. As much as the heads of state may like to cooperate in rooting out terrorists, they may be politically unable to do so. Indeed, there is some indication that a minor 'palace coup' may be behind the move by Saudi Arabia to not allow US forces to operate from Saudi airbases.
Cleaning terrorists out of these countries will be very tricky. First, the governments of those states must be shown that the risk they face in not cooperating is higher than they face by cooperating. This is where a strong conventional military presence is important, those who say such has no role in a war on terrorism notwithstanding. Once the reluctant governments have come onto the anti-terrorism team they will have to take the lead in cleaning terrorist elements from their territory. Direct outside assistance would increase the risk of serious unrest and revolution that they face. Any assistance to them must be behind the scenes, in intelligence and economic assistance. Carrot and stick; they must be shown that it is clearly in their best interest to cooperate.
There are also the governments that directly support terrorists. For example, it is my opinion, and evidence is piling up to confirm it, that Iraq played a part in the recent attacks. Here we move on to the second front; the conventional military.
Operations in Afghanistan will (or should) be military, as opposed to law enforcement, but not 'conventional' in the sense of large bodies of troops operating against similarly formed opposition. This will be a small scale war, as punitive border operations often are. The Taliban does have a modest conventional military capacity, and are lining up Scud launchers along the Pakistani border (to put pressure on Pakistan and strike at possible US bases), but not enough to risk a stand up battle with heavily armed US forces.
The most likely US plan will be to lead off with air strikes against the above mentioned Scud launchers, and any other Taliban military facilities or troop concentrations. This will have to be carried out in as short a period of time as possible; the Taliban will not sit still for an extended bombardment like the Iraqis did. Hopefully, this will cripple the Taliban's ability to field any force above the level of light infantry.
Following these strikes, small groups of US special ops units will infiltrate the Afghan countryside (there are indications that some US elements have been in Pakistan for several days, and some British assets are already in Afghanistan). These units will also implement the carrot and stick approach; tribes that allow them to pass freely will be rewarded (bribed) for doing so. Those that fight will have to face the heavy firepower that the infantry has just a radio call away. (Afghanistan is still largely a tribal nation, and the 'reward the ones that behave and swat the ones that don't' approach has worked well there before.) The objective will be the terrorist training camps (surely empty by now, but possibly containing useful evidence, and which must be destroyed in any case), and rooting out Taliban and Al Qaeda elements. This is likely to be a time consuming process, and very difficult even with the acquiescence of the population, and nearly impossible if there is active resistance from the hill tribes.
A note on tactics. It has been pointed out how 'brave' the terrorists are, in that they're willing to die in order to take out their target. Look at it a different way; they think that if they die slaying the infidel that they're going straight to paradise. How much courage does it take to go to paradise? But whether or not their actions can be considered courageous, the willingness of the opposition to die is a significant operational concern. Most battles are decided long before all of one side's soldiers are dead; one side or the other sees which way things are going, and the soldiers start trying to save their own skins. Morale is a critical determining factor in the outcome of any military struggle. Something that weakened the resolve of the holy warriors to fight to the death could be of considerable assistance. If, say, terrorists, or those fighting in support of them, were to die in such a way that they would be denied paradise. Strangled with a pigskin garrote, for example, or shot with a pigfat coated bullet.
These operations will have to be based out of Pakistan, which is a complicating factor. Most of the the people along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan are either Afghan refugees, or have cross border tribal ties (Pushtun). There is also a significant militant Islamic minority in Pakistan. The bases that US forces are operating out of will need extensive security, against sabotage as well as outright attack. I consider it likely that there will be at least one attempt made to overthrow the Pakistani government. There is a small, but significant, possibility of US forces being drawn into a civil war in Pakistan.
At some point in this process, the scope of activities will expand to include Iraq. I believe that a large part of the US military buildup currently underway in the region is intended more to be used against Iraq than Afghanistan. This will be a 'traditional' conventional war, with airstrikes against Iraqi infrastructure and a ground invasion to break Saddam Hussein's power for good. This operation may be complicated if Saudi Arabia does not relent and allow US troops to operate from its territory, but if necessary could be carried out from Turkey and the Persian Gulf. Some suitable new faction will have to be found to rule Iraq, and bits may be sliced off and given to surrounding countries as a reward for their cooperation.
Once those two operations have been carried out, and assuming that no new countries throw their hat into the ring on the opposition's side (a significant possibility; watch Syria and Egypt), the conventional military phase is over. We then proceed to the longest phase, and the most difficult; mopping up.
Overthrowing regimes that support terrorists, and breaking up Osama Bin Laden's network will make it harder, but not impossible, for terrorists to operate. At this point there will be few, if any, clear targets for conventional military forces. Some of the elite special ops teams will stay on the job, but the mopping up operation is largely a job for the Intelligence community, and local law enforcement in the countries where the terrorists are operating. Patience, information gathering, and the cooperation of local governments are all necessary in rooting out individual terrorist cells, but it can be done.
While the mopping up operation is going on, it will be crucial to long term success in the fight against terrorism to win over the younger generation. If the power of the radical fundamentalists can be broken, the younger generation will be fairly quickly absorbed into Western culture and lose (or rather, never gain) any desire to destroy it. If we can avoid coming down too hard on the civilian population of the region, and if we are generous to the defeated.
There will be more terrorist attacks on American soil during the course of this war. Some of them may be worse than the recent attack on the World Trade Center. One thing that we should have learned from this attack, but seem to have not, is that the military cannot protect us from terrorist attack. Neither will the new airline security measures being put in place be of any use. The main factor in preventing hijackings right now is that the terrorists are aware of what the passengers would do if faced with a hijacking attempt. A generation of Americans raised on the creed of "Do what they say and no one will get hurt" has realized that sometimes fighting back is the safest course. The best deterrent to terrorism is a free citizenry willing to fight, and aware of its strength. How long the lesson will be remembered, and what our government will make of it, remains to be seen.
On the matter of Iraq, I should point out that within months of writing the above I changed my mind about Iraq's involvement in the 2001 terrorist attacks on the US. (The possible connection, in my mind, was the now largely forgotten anthrax incidents, not the 9/11 attacks themselves.) I opposed the US invasion of Iraq, not because the destruction of the Hussein regime would be any loss to the world, but because the available evidence indicated that Iraq was no threat to us, (The phrase I used often at the time was, "We are not invading Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction, but because they don't.) it would squander much of the international good will we had accrued in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it would divert our conventional military strength from what will be the critical focus of the 21st century (east Asia), and because the occupation subsequent to the conquest would be a long, grueling, affair, with no guarantee that the new regime would be any more friendly to us than the one we had overthrown.
Our government, though, did in fact proceed on the assumptions I outlined above.
Need a second look at something? Go back up to the Beginning of the page.
Or would you rather just go Home?