| Part One: Two Keys To Winning Against Terrorism
There are two keys to winning the war on terrorism. The first is to recognize that it is not a war on terrorism. It is a war of ideas, against people who use terrorism. This gives special meaning and focus to Sun Tzu's maxim from The Art of War, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
The second key is to understand the situations in which terrorism flourishes, and act to change them. We need to understand the grievances--legitimate or not--that terrorists exploit, and do what we can to address them. We must enter into a dialogue with people who feel powerless and abandoned, for terrorism appeals most strongly to those who feel they have no other way.
Part Two: A Framework of Principles For Combating Terrorism--Expanding on the Two Keys
The first key is to recognize that it is not a war on terrorism. It is a war of ideas, against people who use terrorism. Two principles of action spring directly from this key: - First, we must act on this recognition by strengthening our commitment to our deepest values---not abandoning them. This means strengthening our own democracy, rather then curbing it in the name of fighting terrorism. It means increasing our respect and support for international law, rather than defying it in the name of fighting terrorism. It means rebuilding and expanding our multilateral alliances, rather than undermining them in the name of fighting terrorism, and trying to go it alone. It means reaffirming our kinship with all of humanity, rather than demonizing part of it that our enemy is most intent on trying to recruit.
- Second, we must act on this recognition by understanding our enemy. Just as the FBI uses profilers to understand serial killers, we need to understand the motives of the terrorists we face in order to defeat them. Understanding the terrorists is not about sympathizing with them--except to get into their heads, in order to defeat them.
The second key is to understand the situations in which terrorism flourishes, and act to change them.
The most fundamental situation is a collective feeling of powerlessness. That is why we must begin a dialogue with those who feel powerless and abandoned. But we must also show good faith, by realizing ourselves the justice of some of their key demands, and working to address them. For example:
- We need to understand--as a Pentagon advisory board warned in 1998--that our very presence in the Middle East is one of those grievances, and find ways to minimize it.
- We need to stop aligning ourselves with regimes that oppress their own people, under the false impression that this is necessary for our national security. These alliances threaten our national security far more than they contribute to it.
- We need to see that our strategy of blindly supporting Israeli hyper-nationalism is self-defeating. Israeli politics is being driven by a self-destructive extremist dynamic, which we contribute to by giving money without conditions. It is bad for Israel as well as creating grievance for terrorists to exploit. Israel needs our help by setting limits, not by indulging its darkest fears and wildest ambitions--which only fuel dark fears and wild ambitions on the Arab/Palestinian side, creating cycles of violence in which everyone loses...except the terrorists.
- We need to understand that our reliance on oil is unsustainable. At root, global warming and global terrorism share a common cause that we must squarely address. We need a major effort to shift our economy to clean, renewable energy, and much higher levels of energy efficiency.
Part Three: A Strategy For Success
Success in the combating of global terrorism has three components: the role of the military, our overseas strategy, and our domestic strategy. Each is dealt with in a separate section.
Section One: The Role of The Military
Because the war on terrorism is primarily a war of ideas, the role of the military is necessarily limited.
In a recent interview, Colin Powell's Chief of Staff as Secretary of State, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, said the following:
This wider conflict is a conflict of ideas. It is our ideas, which are the political values upon which America is based, indeed, upon western liberalism is based, and the ideas of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other evil people like those. And if we think that this conflict can be won with bombs, bullets and bayonets, we are sadly mistaken.
I was a soldier for 31 years. You do not fight ideas with bombs, bullets and bayonets. You fight them with your ideas, because your ideas are better. And so, when you detract from the better of your ideas, when you give people in the world, especially the millions of moderate Muslims who might be sitting on the fence right now in this conflict, when you give them reason to doubt your credibility, to doubt your ideas, give them reason to criticize you, you're actually defeating yourself. And we just can't continue to do that sort of thing, because this is a war of ideas, and we're going to win it with our ideas, triumphant over the ideas of people like bin Laden and Zarqawi.
Only those who have not served in the military are foolish enough to think that the military can solve all problems. Nothing is more dangerous to a top-flight military than to expect it to do things that no military can--such as, to win a war of ideas. It can help us win a war of ideas... but only by acting in accord with our ideas, as Colonel Wilkerson said.
With this in mind, we have the following three principles for the use and care of military:
(1) Care for the troops--active and retired - Reverse Republican cuts to veterans funding, and expand services to meet the needs of returning Iraq War veterans.
- End questionable recruiting tactics that make promises contrary to what the military needs people to do. Recruiting people under false pretenses damages and dishonors the military.
- End high-pressure recruiting tactics. Repeal the "No Child Left Behind" provision that allows for unfettered military recruiting in America's high schools. Recruiting people using relentless pressure also damages and dishonors the military.
If the military has difficulty meeting recruiting goals, this is one way that a democratic people tells its leaders that their policies are unwise and lack public support. Trying to evade this message by putting pressure on recruiters--and, in turn, unwilling recruits--is an abdication of duty and evasion of responsibility by the nations civilian leadership.
(2) Reinstate the "Powell Doctrine"
The so-called "Powell Doctrine"--which actually derived from his former boss, Caspar Weinberg--is generally taken as a fair summary of the common-sense bottom line lessons the military learned the Vietnam War, but it was completely ignored in going to war with Iraq. There are larger questions it does not address.
Two in particular deserve mention. First, what is meant by "national interest" and second, the issue of international law. It is up to the civilian political process, not the military to define the national interest--whether it includes promoting democracy, stopping genocide, defending human rights, protecting overseas corporate investments, etc. Second, what about questions of international law--which are deal with elsewhere in this document. These are important issues, but are beyond the purview of The Powell Doctrine, which is a narrowly focused minimum of military lessons learned from Vietnam.
The Powell Doctrine has been stated various ways, but can be summarized thus: - War should be a last resort.
The Iraq war was not a last resort. Indeed, the UN had to remove weapons inspectors who were searching in vain for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), in order for the US to invade to destroy the non-existent WMDs
- The purpose should be clearly articulated and reflect a well-defined national interest (as established by the civilian political process).
The purpose for invading Iraq was never clear, as it toppled an enemy of al Qaeda and distracted money, manpower, and attention from continuing to hunt them down. The idea of creating a "democratic Iraq" was invented after the fact, and was, in fact, originally opposed by the Bush Administration when Iraqi critics of the US occupation first called for democratic elections. The neo-conservative agenda--of asserting worldwide US military dominance--was a semi-hidden purpose held by many top Administration officials, that was never openly subject to serious public debate, as it runs deeply counter to US public opinion.
- It should enjoy strong public support, sufficient to sustain the effort.
This is clearly dependent on it reflecting a well-defined national interest, as well as the public judgment that war is worth the prospective sacrifice. The public opposed invading Iraq without UN support until the very last moment, when it was obvious we were invading anyway. They were never sold on the reasons Bush gave after no WMDs were found.
- Once decided, it should be executed with overwhelming force.
Although we had overwhelming air superiority, we invaded with too few ground troops, according to then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Ken Shinseki, who was forced into early retirement after offering this assessment of the need for several hundred thousand men to occupy Iraq to the Congress in the months before our invasion. Although Saddam's forces surrendered Baghdad virtually without a fight--making things much easier on us than they might have been--it is now known that there were pre-existing plans to fight a second-stage war of resistance, which we are presently losing, because the amount of troops needed to win such a war in a country the size of Iraq far exceeds the number of combat troops available.
- There should be a clear exit strategy.
The Bush Administration didn't think we needed one. They thought we'd be greeted with flowers, and told to stay as long as we liked.
If we had stuck with the Powell Doctrine, we would have never invaded Iraq. We would have stayed focused on our real enemy. This would not have ensured success, because there were many other problems with Bush's misunderstanding of the war on terrorism. But we almost certainly would have done a much better job of weakening al Qaeda and keeping them on the defensive. We would not have overthrown his bitterest ideological enemy, and we would not have seemingly made his case for him--that Americans really were at war with Islam as a whole.
(3) Don't Use The Military For Non-Military Fights - Use intelligence agencies and police agencies on the frontline of fighting terrorism.
- Use humanitarian aid, and vigorous diplomacy to respond to longstanding needs and grievances that terrorists exploit.
- Use the National Guard at home, as part of a strengthened first responder system, defending against natural disasters--from hurricanes to pandemic flu--as well as terrorism.
Section Two: Rethinking Our International Approach
Limiting the military to what it does best necessarily means that other institutions and approaches must also be pressed to do their best. These, too, involve sacrifice in order to acheive a higher good. There are three principles for us to observe on the international front, both to support and compliment the role of our military.
(1) Respect International Law
There is both a moral and a pragmatic reason to respect international law---which the Bush Administration has treated with contempt, bringing shame on our nation. International law is an expression of our deepest values as Americans. We proclaim ourselves to be a nation of laws, not of men, a democratic republic, not a monarchy, aristocracy or dictatorship. We honor and respect the rights and dignity of all by restraining the power of anyone to rise above the law. This is a profound moral principle that lies at the heart of American democracy. International law extends that principle to the international stage. By committing ourselves to it, we say that America as a nation lives among a community of nations, bound by the same principles that its citizens have bound themselves to create a more perfect union.
Respect for international law is pragmatic as well. International law is our friend. America has had an enormous influence on the development of international law, and, because we have such far-flung interests, we are one of the chief beneficiaries of it. When we violate international law--by failing to follow the laws of war regarding treatment of prisoners, for example--we endanger the safety of our own soldiers when they fall into enemy hands. Additionally, under the Constitution, our treaties, and other instruments of international law are incorporated into US law. These are laws that we have agreed to. We have given our word. We are honor-bound to keep our word, and respect the law. We make the world a better place--and a safer place--by our example when we do. When we don't, we give dictators, terrorists and other bad actors a custom-made excuse for their own atrocities. This is a real no-brainer, even though it is difficult sometimes. Doing things that are sometimes difficult is what leadership is all about.
(2) Combat Terrorism--Don't Get Sidetracked By Other Hidden Agendas.
Some other agendas may be worthy, others not. The neo-con agenda of US military dominance is not worthy a peace-loving democracy, and is not supported by the American people. Other agendas are worthy, and are supported by the American people--but not necessarily by resorting to unilateral military means, especially before exhausting other alternatives. Among these are spreading democracy and defending human rights.
Unfortunately, we have a long record of tolerating dictatorships and horrendous violations of rights in the name of "the national interest," while opposing democracy when our leaders don't like the outcomes. We are still doing that today, in Haiti and Venezuela, for example. These policies are not consistent with the basic values of the American people, but they are our policies, nonetheless.
Before we start invading people under the banners of democracy and human rights, we need to do a lot more work to bring consistency to our foreign policy, we need to get many other countries on board with us, and we have to exhaust non-violent means before ever considering invasion, which can, unfortunately make matters even worse, even with the best of intentions.
(3) Re-Emphasize Humanitarian Aid, and Vigorous Diplomacy To Respond To Longstanding Needs
On November 13, 60 Minutes ran a segment on thirteen New York City paramedics who responded on their own to the tragedy of the recent earthquake in Pakistan. They went to save lives, because that's what paramedics do. But one offshoot of their efforts has been to sow incredible goodwill towards America.
"We're saving lives, many lives, every single day. You know, as a paramedic in New York City once in a while you have a direct influence on life and death. Here it's happening every half an hour," paramedic Joe Connelly who works at St. Vincent's Hospital in midtown Manhattan told CBS. 60 Minutes continued:
Yaser Bashir Coker brought his little sister to the clinic and says he had never seen Americans before coming to the clinic. His first impression? "They are very cooperative, beautiful and handsome."
And later:
They didn't come to win hearts and minds, but to save lives. Hearts and minds just seemed to follow, and that's fine with Steve Muth. "We can inoculate an entire valley, if we're lucky, against radical Islam," says Muth. "And it's so simple. I'm just a paramedic. It's just a bandage. It's not a $100 million dollar ad campaign from Madison Avenue. It's not, you know, it's not complicated. Could something work better to change somebody's mind? I can't think of anything."
Americans used to know this instinctively. We spread enormous goodwill at the end of World War, and in its immediate aftermath when our soldiers did more than just defeat a terrible, ruthless enemy--they made friends with millions of people who often could barely speak a word in common with them. A generation later, in the height of the Cold War, we established the Peace Corps. Americans know how to do this. Most importantly, it comes naturally to us. It's our strength. And that's how wars are won--by playing from strength.
Even today, after four years of bumbling, and needlessly alienating much of the world's population, the terrorists we face still represent just a tiny fraction of the population they move within. If we change our basic approach to combating them, by reaching out and befriending that population--as our own best instincts would lead us to do anyway--we can effectively isolate them, and cripple their ability to do us harm. We can never kill enough people to do this. But we can save enough lives--just as those thirteen paramedics are doing.
Section Three: Rethinking The Domestic Side of The War On Terrorism
(1) Reorganize Homeland Defense On A Non-Military, Public Safety/Public Health Model
As the example of Katrina showed, and the threat of avian flu reminds us, terrorism is only one threat to our nations security that requires effective coordination from public safety agencies and workers, including police, fire, and health professionals, as well as specialized disaster response teams. Closing hospitals--for veterans or the general public--is not just a hardship for those who are served in normal times, it is a dismantling of the very infrastructure that is vital in responding to terrorist attacks and other large-scale threats to homeland security. We need to rebuild such capacities, including redundancies that are vital in case of an emergency, rather than succumb to the false promise of painless cost-cutting by privatization, which tries to do everything on the cheap, and leaves no one accountable and responsible for the most basic function of government--ensuring the safety of the people.
(2) Stop Demonizing Arab-Americans and American Muslims--And Start Using Them To Win Against Terrorism.
No group should be stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and no individual should be judged on group stereotypes. These principles apply to all Americans of all faiths and all ethnic or racial backgrounds. This is, after all, one of the cherished ideas that we are fighting for in the war of ideas with al Qaeda. We cannot win the war of ideas by fighting on the other side.
Just as the Cold War forced us to realize that racial segregation was wrong, and un-American, the war on terrorism should force us to realize that demonizing and discriminating against Arab-Americans and American Muslims is wrong, and un-American. Some people recognize the truth of justice directly. Others come to that truth because they realize that ignoring it hurts us in our struggles abroad. Either way, the end result is the same: we build our strength by honoring our ideals, not by betraying them.
But there's more.
They Are Not Our Enemies, They Are An Invaluable Resource.
After 9/11, the Bush Administration made a lot of mistakes, due in part to a mistaken sense that constructive criticism would weaken us. One of the worst mistakes it made was to treat America's Arab and Muslim populations primarily as objects of suspicion and menace. In fact, they are possibly our greatest resource in combating terrorism waged in the name of Islam. Even after four years of being treated with suspicion, being subject to increased hate crimes, and bearing the brunt of arbitrary law enforcement actions, the vast majorities of these communities still want to help their country find its way out of a deadly struggle that also deeply endangers their co-religionists, and the people of their homelands. As a group, no one is more motivated to find a quick and lasting end to the war on terror than American Muslims and Arab Americans. Yet, we continue to treat them collectively as if they were all potential suspects--and little else.
It's time to reverse that 180 degrees. No one is better qualified to understand the strategy, tactics and motivations of terrorists than those who come from a similar cultural background. And no one is better qualified to understand how to counter them, as well.
Furthermore, in reaching out to dialogue with and support reform-minded elements opposed to terror, no Americans enjoy a degree of trust comparable to that of the Arab American, and American Muslim community.
We muddy the waters tremendously by always erring in the direction of suspecting the worst, and equating any support for Middle East aspirations with hostility to America. Those who are critics of Palestinian policy, for example, should not be demonized and treated with suspicion. It is far easier to open dialogues with them, than it is to dialogue with desperate Palestinian refugees giving birth to a third generation of refugees--or a fourth. In America, our diversity is our strength--if we have both the vision and the common sense to capitalize on it.
(3) Making America Open Again
Since 9/11, American politics have been extremely divisive, after an initial period of incredible unity. Hearts and doors that were opened in the aftermath of 9/11 have been closed again. We have also closed our doors to the world, making it far harder, and much less pleasant for foreigners to come to America--particularly to teach, study, lecture, attend conferences, and otherwise exchange ideas.
Re-Opening America To The World
We benefited enormously during and after World War II when we became a haven for thinkers from around the world--both for scientists and for those in the humanities. It was not just a one-time thing. After World War II, many of those who came here returned to their home countries. But many more of their compatriots followed them, wave after wave following their example, based on their positive experiences. America has benefited enormously, both from those who have come and stayed, and from those who have come and returned home. We have built both a better, stronger, more prosperous America, and we have built better, stronger, more prosperous relations with the rest of the world. Since 9/11, a tremendous reversal has taken place. Foreign attendance at our colleges and universities has fallen precipitously. Many different individuals have been prevented from coming to America to teach, lecture, study or attend conferences. The vast majority have been kept out for purely political reasons: they are seen by the Bush Administration as hostile to American policies. It gives the impression that if they could, they would keep every Democrat in Congress out of the country.
The only reason for doing this is a shameful lack of faith in strength and validity of our ideas, or a self-destructive unwillingness to better our understanding by exploring new ideas. These are that actions of cowards and haters of free thought. They are not the actions of lovers of liberty. They are deeply destructive of what America stands for, and what it should be. They are precisely the sort of thing we criticize other countries for. They are bad in themselves, and bad for us. Carried on to their logical end, they will bring about an isolated and stagnant America increasingly out of touch with the rest of the world--which is, of course, precisely what the terrorists would like to see.
We must repudiate this path entirely. We must vigorously re-open America to the world, reversing the policies that have driven foreigners away, and seeking the least intrusive means of meeting legitimate security concerns. We need more contact with those who see the world differently than us--not less. We need to constantly expand our horizons, and deepen our self-understanding by listening to how others see us. In a war of ideas, those most open gain the most ideas, and by testing, gain the best ones as well.
Re-Opening America To Itself
Equally important, we need to re-establish America's greatest strength as a democracy--the positive value of dissent and disagreement. One reason that democracies have grown ever more numerous since America was founded is that they provide better government: Criticism beforehand is much more efficient than failure afterwards, particularly when it comes to the most momentous matters, such as going to war.
While Democrats disagree sharply and fundamentally with how Republicans have conducted the war on terrorism, we do not attack them personally in place of criticizing their policies and assumptions--even when they are so foolish and self-destructive as to seemingly endanger our republic. We welcome a debate of ideas, and criticism of ideas, as a constructive process in the long run, whose benefits far outweigh its costs, however frustrating it may seem in a shorter time-frame.
The past 4+ years have seen widespread polarization of political rhetoric, and widespread suppression of dissenting views. This is both hurtful to America on a practical level, and contrary to what we stand for. The right to protest, to question, to dissent, lies at the very heart of what it is to be an American. We cannot diminish, demonize or suppress it without diminishing, demonizing or suppressing America herself. Republicans may do that. Democrats will not.
In fighting a war of ideas, we will not take the enemy's side, the side that attacks our ideas as either evil, dangerous or corrupt. That's how Democrats would fight and win the war on terrorism. That's how Americans would fight and win the war on terrorism. |
