We're Not Aiming at the Right Target

Night before last, I watched Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA, be interviewed on MSNBC. Mr. Scheuer talked about the difference between addressing Islamic terrorism on a transnational basis, which he believes we must do, versus addressing it one country at a time – first, Iraq; then, Iran; then, Syria; then, who knows – which is what he believes the Bush administration is doing. Regarding the most serious threat to America, Mr. Scheuer said:

“[W]e still have a government that doesn‘t, as a whole, both parties, don‘t take this threat very seriously. The idea that we‘re going to do with 40,000 troops in Afghanistan what the Soviets couldn‘t do with 150,000 troops is a bit of madness.”

“We‘ve always overestimated the damage we did to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We didn‘t close the borders there. We won the cities, but the Taliban and al Qaeda escaped basically intact, and they‘ve been rebuilding and reequipping over the past five years.”

“[T]he central place in terms of [the threat of] an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“We don‘t treat this Islamist enemy as seriously as we should. We think somehow we‘re going to arrest them, one man at a time. These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we‘re going to have absolutely nothing to respond against. It‘s going to be a unique situation for a great power, and we‘re going to have no one to blame but ourselves.”

“The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis; they‘re not a threat to the United States. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”

That was a sobering assessment to hear. If by chance anyone in Washington is a little intoxicated by their belief in the efficacy of American firepower in the war on terrorism being waged in Iraq, then it may be time for them to sober up as well. The World Trade Center got hit twice, eight years apart, and neither of those strikes were planned or executed from Iraq or Iran. Therefore, it stands to reason that nothing we’re doing in Iraq or would do in Iran is going to prevent a third strike in the U.S.

The president and his minions are fond of saying that 1) the war in Iraq is the reason we haven’t been attacked since 2001; and 2) if we leave Iraq then terrorists will follow us home. There is no logical basis for either of those statements. In effect, it took al-Qaeda eight years to “reload” between the first and second attack. In all likelihood, they’re in the process of reloading again while we continue to bark up the wrong tree in the wrong forest.

The threat from Islamic terrorism is, as Mr. Scheuer indicates, a transnational problem and it must be addressed as such. Just as the attacks of 1993 and 2001 had nothing to do with us being in or out of Iraq, the next attack won’t have anything to with us staying or leaving Iraq. The planning and execution of terrorist attacks against America have arisen from the mountain ranges and valleys along the Afghan – Pakistani border, and nothing we’re doing elsewhere will prevent the next one. Furthermore, even if we stomp on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan then, like a bubble under the carpet, it will pop up somewhere else. That’s not an argument against stomping on them there; it’s just a reality check on our expectations.

The problem that we’re trying to solve with Islamic extremists involves a virulent and militant belief system that has no geopolitical boundaries. It owes its allegiance to its twisted version of god, not to any nation or to any earthly leader. The current version of our war on terror is like trying to solve world hunger by passing out milk and cheese for a couple of years in one African country. The issues are systemic and the forces at play are numerous, complex and deeply embedded in a transnational network. We need a completely revised “war” plan.

History makes it perfectly clear that one country will never solve this kind of problem with its tanks, grenade launchers and rifles. This is a problem that will only be solved by world leaders sitting down at a round table to relentlessly pursue a mutual understanding of what is driving the madness we witness every day and then negotiating a resolution that recognizes current realities and future needs more than the errors and omissions of the past.

Along the way, there may be a need for a country to defend itself, as is each country’s right, and that defense may entail military action similar to the U.S. entering Afghanistan after being attacked from Afghanistan – as long as we understand that such action will not solve the underlying problem for longer than a handful of years. Along the way, there may be a need for various forms of non-military confrontation, such as tough economic and trade sanctions that are enforced without hesitation – as long as we understand that such action will not solve the underlying problem for longer than a handful of years.

Sooner or later we will come to understand that most problems between people get solved the way they have since the beginning of time – by negotiating settlements that recognize competing interests and differing worldviews and by finding a middle ground in which we can coexist in relative peace and prosperity consistent with the values and principles that we share. We must start with a dialog regarding our common ground and thereby earn the trust necessary to allow an effective discussion of our differences.

We need a new plan.