A Flawed Strategy for the "War on Terror"

[SteveMetz]

The news is abuzz this week with assessments that al Qaeda's influence and power have returned to pre 9/11 levels. I'm sure the Bush administration will explain this as it does its Iraq strategy: everything is on track, but it just takes time.

Maybe that's true. But an alternative explanation is that the administration's strategy is fatally flawed. There are two primary reasons for this. First, when the enemy is motivated primarily by U.S. penetration into the Islamic world, increasing the amount of U.S. penetration into the Islamic world is not exactly the best way to calm them down. But because the administration has based its strategy on the assumption that Islamic extremists aren't really motivated by what they say motivates them but instead by something we made up and ascribed to them ("they hate freedom"), it can't grapple with the idea that its actions are the exact wrong thing to do.

Second, while the administration is right that the foundation of the threat we face is the ideology which generates extremists, it has come up with a strategy that focuses on killing or capturing extremists rather than undercutting the hostile ideology. America's primary "partners" in the conflict--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan--tolerate and even support the ideology which gives rise to violent extremists. Our strategy tolerates this. It is a fatal flaw

[Ski]

Good point, but I'd also bring up that these countries are also not democracies, and that's a contradiction in the strategy as well. If the GWOT is about "democracy" that is.

We've seen what happens with a real democracy in Palestine. Hamas now is the ruling party. I'd say that all three of the countries you mention would have decent percentages of radical Islamic political parties entrenching themselves if any of these countries were to actually become a democracy.

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

Second, while the administration is right that the foundation of the threat we face is the ideology which generates extremists, it has come up with a strategy that focuses on killing or capturing extremists rather than undercutting the hostile ideology. America's primary "partners" in the conflict--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan--tolerate and even support the ideology which gives rise to violent extremists. Our strategy tolerates this. It is a fatal flaw

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by Ski

Good point, but I'd also bring up that these countries are also not democracies, and that's a contradiction in the strategy as well. If the GWOT is about "democracy" that is.

We've seen what happens with a real democracy in Palestine. Hamas now is the ruling party. I'd say that all three of the countries you mention would have decent percentages of radical Islamic political parties entrenching themselves if any of these countries were to actually become a democracy.

Our strategy is based on the assumption that democracies will be liberal democracies. Policymakers need to read Fareed Zakaria so they can grapple with the notion of illiberal democracies.

I still contend, though, that we should be defining our relationship with other states more on whether they oppose or support the ideology of Islamic extremism rather than whether they torture AQ suspects for us.

[FascistLibertarian]

Well if you live in Iraq or the occupied ter's why would u care if your a demo?
Thats great you voted but you have no job, the power and water dont work, and people want to kill you and your family.
Demo's will only work when the legit state can give services and protection for people.
Otherwise of course u would turn to Hamas and hezbollah.
Talk to some people from Leb about who gets things done and provides for them.......
If the leb state doesnt and hez does who are you going to support?

[tequila]

Steve, could you clarify how the Egyptian state supports Islamist extremism? You could make an argument for Saudi, sure, and maybe Musharraf and the Pakistani state at certain times, especially in Afghanistan, but I have a hard time figuring how the Egyptians do so.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by tequila

Steve, could you clarify how the Egyptian state supports Islamist extremism? You could make an argument for Saudi, sure, and maybe Musharraf and the Pakistani state at certain times, especially in Afghanistan, but I have a hard time figuring how the Egyptians do so.

The Egyptian state press and most of the clerics spew an endless stream of hate toward the United States. Mubarak seems to take the approach of the Sauds--so long as the hate is directed against the United States, it isn't pointed at me. This environment helps Egyptians conclude that attacking the United States is OK.

[marct]

That's a good point, FL, and it brings up one really important issue, loosely paraphrased as - "what is a nation state that you are mindful of it"?

Modern nation states are just one form of social organization, and a pretty recent one at that. The idea that a "government" should "give services and protection for people" is also quite new, and derives out of the concept of western feudal obligation. "Services and protection" are, when you get right down to it, nothing more than a set of mutual obligations and responsibilities, and these can appear in any number of different forms.

When Steve noted that

Our strategy is based on the assumption that democracies will be liberal democracies.

there is also another implicit assumption that the organizations involved will only be nation states which, to my mind, is a fatal flaw.

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by marct

there is also another implicit assumption that the organizations involved will only be nation states which, to my mind, is a fatal flaw.

Marc

Agree. I kind of played with that idea in my Rethinking Insurgency monograph. During the prep seminars for Unified Quest over the winter, I was struck by the idea that in our conceptualization of counterinsurgency, the "end state" is that a government is in full control of its territory and has no challengers as a provider of security. Given what I see in the world, that is swimming against the tide of history which seems to be moving toward less effective national governments, not more.

That said, I have yet to come up with an alternative. Should we be able to form alliances with militias? Can we form alliances with and declare war on PMCs?

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

Agree. I kind of played with that idea in my Rethinking Insurgency monograph. During the prep seminars for Unified Quest over the winter, I was struck by the idea that in our conceptualization of counterinsurgency, the "end state" is that a government is in full control of its territory and has no challengers as a provider of security. Given what I see in the world, that is swimming against the tide of history which seems to be moving toward less effective national governments, not more.

I certainly agree that the "end state" is always viewed in that way . I also agree that the general trend is away from effective nation states. Personally, I think that that assumption is just a reworking of the "and they lived happily ever after" of the high romantic fairy tale genre.

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

That said, I have yet to come up with an alternative. Should we be able to form alliances with militias? Can we form alliances with and declare war on PMCs?

Already been done. On the first point, look at the Cold War ops in, say Angola or Nicaragua or any number of other "countries". As to the second point, again the answer is yes - does the name Mike Hoare ring a bell or Executive Outcomes ?

I think one of the main reasons for restricting "official" international politics to nation states is to maintain the position that the only legitimate type of government is a nation state. This is an ideological illusion that serves a number of domestic political purposes.

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Steve,



I certainly agree that the "end state" is always viewed in that way . I also agree that the general trend is away from effective nation states. Personally, I think that that assumption is just a reworking of the "and they lived happily ever after" of the high romantic fairy tale genre.



Already been done. On the first point, look at the Cold War ops in, say Angola or Nicaragua or any number of other "countries". As to the second point, again the answer is yes - does the name Mike Hoare ring a bell or Executive Outcomes ?

I think one of the main reasons for restricting "official" international politics to nation states is to maintain the position that the only legitimate type of government is a nation state. This is an ideological illusion that serves a number of domestic political purposes.

Marc

I meant formal alliances with legal standing.

[tequila]

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

The Egyptian state press and most of the clerics spew an endless stream of hate toward the United States. Mubarak seems to take the approach of the Sauds--so long as the hate is directed against the United States, it isn't pointed at me. This environment helps Egyptians conclude that attacking the United States is OK.

How much of this is generated by the Egyptian state and how much is simply allowed because it represents a genuine anti-American feeling, however?

Freer presses in places like India, Indonesia, and Turkey (also to an extent South Korea and Japan) also feature rather prominent anti-American rhetoric, with countervailing tendencies (also present in the Egyptian media, if less so, but certainly allowed). If Egypt overnight transformed into a liberal democracy, that would not stop anti-American rhetoric --- indeed, it might even see an increase.

[FascistLibertarian]

All good points.
I think Islamist extremism is a major threat to the Egyptian government. They have been working with moderate Islamic people with decent results (recent baning of FGM with clerical support for example)

What confuses me is Syria is secular (as Iraq was). How come they support radical Islam outside of their borders?

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

I meant formal alliances with legal standing.

That just ties back to my comments about fairy tales . Okay, does a government contract have legal standing? Also, whose legal system? What do we mean by a "formal alliance"? Did the US have one with the FLNA in Angola? Does a state recognize a non-state faction as a state as the only way to justify the existence of an alliance (vide the PRC vs. Taiwan)?

Let me step back from these issues for a second and bring up the other end of the scale, to whit, trans-national organizations (TNO) - e.g. the UN, the WHO, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, etc. Technically these groups are not nation states, but at least one of them enjoys protections under the Vienna Protocols (the UN) which implies a recognition of some form of sovereignty. Many nation states have entered into what are certainly de facto if, in some cases, not de jure "alliances" with these organizations.

Another example of a TNO which is being treated as a de facto "state" is AQ; witness the current US declaration of a de facto war against AQ and he current questions / concerns over the exact status and rights of prisoners captured during this war (e.g. gitmo).

Are we talking about de facto reality or de jure illusions? I'm not asking this to be silly; the answer will have really serious implications on planning and the creation of strategies.

Marc

[FascistLibertarian]

To be a nation state you need (among other things) to be able to rasie taxes and have a standing army. This is why the EU and UN could never (in my view) be nation states.

[Pragmatic Thinker]

Steve you wrote -- "Second, while the administration is right that the foundation of the threat we face is the ideology which generates extremists, it has come up with a strategy that focuses on killing or capturing extremists rather than undercutting the hostile ideology. America's primary "partners" in the conflict--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan--tolerate and even support the ideology which gives rise to violent extremists. Our strategy tolerates this. It is a fatal flaw"

I think that capturing/killing extremists (terrorists, insurgents, guerillas,...) is important in a sense that our message is that if you join these ranks bad things can happen to you. This gets solidified everytime we hear the enemy saying "I am slightly demoralized and scared because my buddy Abdul just got captured last night in a raid, I am not sure I want to be a jihadist anymore..." Of course, I made that quote up but my point is this is a measurable way to do something. Also, I disagree with those who would contend that capturing/killing these guys hurts us. I will say that we will never "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan by this method alone but I will say that it is important part of the overall strategy which is what the military was created to do. However, I think our civilian government (mostly Department of State) has done a terrible job politically getting these countries "fixed", which they say is difficult to do based on the security situation and foreign investors unwilling to risk life and money in projects. So the cycle continues, we attempt to improve security (capturing/killing bad guys) and on the cheap we try to "rebuild" but there isn't nearly the impetus in rebuilding as there is in securing. I believe a major flaw in Iraq came when this administration shut out any outside foreign investors from going into Iraq and rebuilding. This is not an example of our government doing what was best for the Iraqi people, but what was good for the U.S. businesses. It is a shame that Iraqi's still lack basic electricity and running water four years after the war.

Now you mention that we tolerate Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan which I am assuming means that our support to these regimes is causing the militancy in the first place and secondly these regimes are mostly non-democratic from a western point of view and there are strong undercurrents of social discontent within those three countries. Sooo...my question is what should we do? Cut ties with them? In the case of Saudi Arabia that goes without saying, we have strong economic ties with them plus long standing political relationships that I still don't fully understand but they are there; in the case of Egypt we have strong interests in seeing someone we can deal with in charge of the Suez Canal; and in the case of Pakistan I think we continue with poor foreign policy in that one... Bottom line, I am not sure I know how to defeat an ideology. I know how to find and kill individuals who would like to bring physical harm to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't know how you defeat that drive in them to commit these acts. When foreign policy (war simply being an extension) is driven by economics and politics, and not truly morally or security driven you are going to have a messy conflict. People are pissed off because the Americans came into their country under the banner of "bringing prosperity and democracy" and all that has ensued is lots of violence and little overall prosperity. We can't have both...we either commit to these campaigns to truly bring prosperity which in my mind would mean any company (U.S. or otherwise) that is willing to come in and rebuild infrastructure should be allowed that opportunity. Also, you realize that when a country contains several disparate ethnic groups who have a long history of hating each other that removing the dictator isn't going to create a condition where love toward fellow man will follow. It is called a power grab and everyone wants their agenda met. We should have learned this lesson in Bosnia and Kosovo, but the only guy who really sounded off was General Shinseki and look what that bought him...

[marct]

Hi FL,

Originally Posted by FascistLibertarian

To be a nation state you need (among other things) to be able to rasie taxes and have a standing army. This is why the EU and UN could never (in my view) be nation states.

As a note, Hamas raises taxes and has a standing army, the EU and the UN have provisions for gaining revenue (taxes on governments in the EU case and "contributions" for the UN) and raising military forces. Right now, at least three nation states do not have standing armies: the Vatican, Lichtenstein and Monaco.

Marc

[tequila]

A rather longer list of countries with no standing armies.

I would not count Hamas as having a standing army as opposed to a militia force. Hizbullah comes much closer.

A far better non-state example than either as far as success in levying taxation and progress towards a professionalized army would be the LTTE, which also has a small navy and air force. The LTTE also does not enjoy state sponsorship in the way that Hamas and Hizbullah do.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by Pragmatic Thinker

Steve you wrote -- "Second, while the administration is right that the foundation of the threat we face is the ideology which generates extremists, it has come up with a strategy that focuses on killing or capturing extremists rather than undercutting the hostile ideology. America's primary "partners" in the conflict--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan--tolerate and even support the ideology which gives rise to violent extremists. Our strategy tolerates this. It is a fatal flaw"

I think that capturing/killing extremists (terrorists, insurgents, guerillas,...) is important in a sense that our message is that if you join these ranks bad things can happen to you. This gets solidified everytime we hear the enemy saying "I am slightly demoralized and scared because my buddy Abdul just got captured last night in a raid, I am not sure I want to be a jihadist anymore..." Of course, I made that quote up but my point is this is a measurable way to do something. Also, I disagree with those who would contend that capturing/killing these guys hurts us. I will say that we will never "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan by this method alone but I will say that it is important part of the overall strategy which is what the military was created to do. However, I think our civilian government (mostly Department of State) has done a terrible job politically getting these countries "fixed", which they say is difficult to do based on the security situation and foreign investors unwilling to risk life and money in projects. So the cycle continues, we attempt to improve security (capturing/killing bad guys) and on the cheap we try to "rebuild" but there isn't nearly the impetus in rebuilding as there is in securing. I believe a major flaw in Iraq came when this administration shut out any outside foreign investors from going into Iraq and rebuilding. This is not an example of our government doing what was best for the Iraqi people, but what was good for the U.S. businesses. It is a shame that Iraqi's still lack basic electricity and running water four years after the war.

Now you mention that we tolerate Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan which I am assuming means that our support to these regimes is causing the militancy in the first place and secondly these regimes are mostly non-democratic from a western point of view and there are strong undercurrents of social discontent within those three countries. Sooo...my question is what should we do? Cut ties with them? In the case of Saudi Arabia that goes without saying, we have strong economic ties with them plus long standing political relationships that I still don't fully understand but they are there; in the case of Egypt we have strong interests in seeing someone we can deal with in charge of the Suez Canal; and in the case of Pakistan I think we continue with poor foreign policy in that one... Bottom line, I am not sure I know how to defeat an ideology. I know how to find and kill individuals who would like to bring physical harm to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't know how you defeat that drive in them to commit these acts. When foreign policy (war simply being an extension) is driven by economics and politics, and not truly morally or security driven you are going to have a messy conflict. People are pissed off because the Americans came into their country under the banner of "bringing prosperity and democracy" and all that has ensued is lots of violence and little overall prosperity. We can't have both...we either commit to these campaigns to truly bring prosperity which in my mind would mean any company (U.S. or otherwise) that is willing to come in and rebuild infrastructure should be allowed that opportunity. Also, you realize that when a country contains several disparate ethnic groups who have a long history of hating each other that removing the dictator isn't going to create a condition where love toward fellow man will follow. It is called a power grab and everyone wants their agenda met. We should have learned this lesson in Bosnia and Kosovo, but the only guy who really sounded off was General Shinseki and look what that bought him...

Personally, I think we should consider downgrading our ties to those countries. I mean, what do we really get from them? How constructive a role is Egypt playing in the Palestinian dispute? With the Saudis, it's not like they're not going to sell oil if we stop cozying up to them.

One way you defeat an ideology is by delegtimizing it. All three of those states help legitimize the extremist ideology. Basically, we said "you're for or against us" and we then allowed those three to play both sides. If there is an "axis of evil" today it is states that supply transnational terrorists and funds for them. At the top of the list is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.

[marct]

Thanks, Tequila!

Originally Posted by tequila

A rather longer list of countries with no standing armies.

I would not count Hamas as having a standing army as opposed to a militia force. Hizbullah comes much closer.

A far better non-state example than either as far as success in levying taxation and progress towards a professionalized army would be the LTTE, which also has a small navy and air force. The LTTE also does not enjoy state sponsorship in the way that Hamas and Hizbullah do.

I've got to agree with you on the LTTE as well.

I think the entire point behind this pat of the discussion is really to look at the question: what defines a nation state and are their entities that have all the core characteristics that are not nation states.

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by marct

Thanks, Tequila!



I've got to agree with you on the LTTE as well.

I think the entire point behind this pat of the discussion is really to look at the question: what defines a nation state and are their entities that have all the core characteristics that are not nation states.

Marc

Wait a minute!!! You mean discussions here are supposed to have a POINT?