Originally Posted by
SteveMetz
Six years after September 11, American grand strategy is not generating the desired results. Certainly a number of terrorists have been killed or captured and key terrorist cells broken up, but the ideology of Islamic extremism has not been delegitimized and terrorists have found new methods for communications, planning, training, fund raising, and attacks. The intelligence community admits that globally, al Qaeda is as strong as it was at the time of the 2001 attacks. Hostility toward the United States is escalating, particularly in the Islamic world. Iraq, the centerpiece of American strategy since 2003, appears doomed to be at best a partial success when compared to the lofty expectations immediately following the removal of the Hussein regime, possibly a disaster. This all suggests the need for a fundamental reevaluation and revision of American grand strategy.
Two alternatives appear to make sense. Certainly we should assume that we will be engaged in conflict with violent Islamic extremists for at least so long as: 1) we remain dependent on imported petroleum and thus engaged in the Islamic world; 2) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues and we remain an ally of Israel; 3) the Islamic world does not undertake the massive introspection and reform necessary to address its economic and political problems. But which of the two alternatives one supports depends on whether violent Islamic extremism is seen as the paramount security threat of our time, or as one of several threats and challenges. If it is one of several, then clearly American grand strategy should move toward a more balanced treatment of threats and challenges, ending the tendency to gauge every issue, policy, and program in terms of its relationship to the war on terror. American strategy should continue to stress proliferation, but do so without portraying the problem solely as the “nexus” between terrorism and proliferation. It should also give greater weight to what is often called “human security”—day to day freedom from disease, poverty, and crime. It should certainly address the way that globalization and other shifts in the global economy affect security. Current strategy is largely devoid of assessments of the impact that the growing American trade imbalance, immigration, deficit spending, the aging of the American population, the declining position of American science and technology, and climate change have on security. None of these are, strictly speaking, related to the war on terror. But they are serious. A balanced grand strategy would shift some resources and attention to them.
The second approach assumes that, in fact, the conflict with Islamic extremism is the preeminent security threat of our time. The problem then becomes delegitimizing the ideology which generates terrorists and extremists rather than simply killing and capturing terrorists. Current American strategy does, in fact, recognize the need to dry up the source. But its method for doing so—imploring other nations to adopt liberal democracy—is inadequate. A more focused strategy would, admittedly, be uncomfortable and force the United States to rethink some of its most closely held values and traditions. Specifically, it would require:
Maximum disengagement from the from the Islamic world. (This is based on the assumption that when Islamic extremists say they are motivated by American penetration of the Islamic world, they are telling the truth—that is what motivates them, not a “hatred for freedom.”)
Ending America’s petroleum addiction.
Developing a list of partner and non-partner states based on whether they tolerate the ideology of Islamic extremism, not simply whether they prosecute al Qaeda (our current criterion). States like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and others which by commission or omission tolerate and even encourage anti-American extremism would be non-partners. Aid to, immigration from, and visas for the citizens of non-partner states would end.
Approaching cyberspace as a key battlefield. Currently, it is the ultimate "ungoverned space." Consider hosting web sites or transmitting information which advocates violence as a hostile act. Take action against it. In other words, don't allow the extremists to hide behind the importance we place on free speech and the transnational nature of information.
Be prepared to launch spoiling raids as necessary against hostile groups but do not reengineer their nations. While this may be a worthy endeavor, the strategic costs outweigh the benefits.
Bookmarks