Winning the Right War

Philip Gordon has an essay in the current issue of Foreign Affairs on how to win the War on Terror. It’s a good read and a clear eyed analysis of both the nature of the war and what victory would look like. Mercifully he avoids the sarcastic Bush bashing that so taints much criticism of current administration policy. I don’t agree with everything he has to say but he presents well reasoned arguments and is right on in most of his conclusions. He does set up a few straw men, suggesting for example that we are about to conduct a WWII style mobilization and invade half the Muslim world. Who’s advocating that? He seems to think, like a lot of policy wonks do, that everybody else has it wrong and if we would just do as he suggests everything will come out roses. He also thinks invading Iraq was a mistake. Of course there are other views, including mine. Still, the essay is well worth reading and I ordered his book. Straw men do have their uses. Gordon’s central insight is the need to avoid falling into the trap of over reaction. He uses the extreme case to make the point, noting that al Qaeda’s fundamental strategy is to provoke a heavy handed response, produce chaos, and ultimately step in as a last chance for order in the style of the Taliban after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. He makes the case that victory will come when Muslims turn away from the ideology behind al Qaeda style extremism. No acceptable amount of force can make them do that. Muslims will have to decide for themselves.

Gordon’s arguments are as well articulated as they are well reasoned but with the exception of his point that it is unrealistic to expect complete eradication of terror, I’m not sure how much of it is really new. Even that point has been made before. George Bush famously commented that the War on Terror might not be winnable in the conventional sense but was forced to “clarify” when he got a frenzied reaction from the media. People are going to have to eventually come to grips with the idea that the draconian measures required to insulate us entirely are not worth the cost. More public discussion like Gordon’s could help with that.

The notion that invading Iraq was counterproductive rests on the assertion that it has served as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda and caused increased anti-American sentiment among Muslims around the world. It has done both but al Qaeda has been discredited in Iraq, partly because of brutality directed at fellow Muslims, and far more importantly because they have failed. Young radicals were attracted to them because they saw an opportunity to defeat another superpower. Bin Laden told them God would lead them to victory as He did against the Soviets in Afghanistan. At this point Americans appear to have a clear cut victory within the grasp and foreign suicide bomber infiltration through Syria has slowed to a trickle. Much could still go wrong but so far God hasn’t taken the field. As for anti-American sentiment, I’m not sure how much worse it could get beyond the level that produced 911. Our efforts to defend ourselves with “moral authority” are an exercise in futility.

Ironically Iraq may yet serve to dramatically shorten what has been called the Long War. Retired General Barry McCaffrey concluded after a recent field trip that Iraqis are tired of the bloodshed, especially women. That’s what happened to prompt Afghans turning to the Taliban. Iraqis may now be ready to come together in support of government security forces if they conclude they are the winning side. It’s hard to think about complex political issues when your family is in mortal danger.

I get the sense something like that may be happening around the world. Terrorism isn’t getting anybody anywhere. Only the weak resort to it in the first place and because they are weak, they tend to settle for so called “soft” targets, meaning civilians. Sometimes that’s just to make noise and instill a feeling of chaos. Sometimes it is a devise to intimidate a local populace into supporting insurgents. Sometimes it’s directed at a foreign power to erode public support for a cause not seen as important enough to justify the cost. In any case the strategy isn’t likely to win many hearts and minds, especially if it doesn’t seem to be working. Lots of Muslims around the world might like to see America get its comeuppance but not at the expense of having to live under the thumb of such brutes, and especially not if America doesn’t seem to be getting said comeuppance. Terrorism has already produced a backlash among Muslims. Most Muslims never bought in to the ideology behind it. Many of those who did have begun to look for a better way. Growing prosperity, sizeable middle classes, and emerging democracy in Muslim countries as diverse as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia could well be that better way.

Philip Gordon is right. It’s time to start thinking what a victory in the War on Terror might look like. It may be closer than we think. There is one big caveat. Another incident with anything like the drama of 911 and all bets are off. That could still happen, in a western city or at a major Muslim shrine. Lets all hope it doesn’t.