The problem with waging war on terror
Alex Knapp diagnoses our inability to confront the recent spat of terrorist attacks on Americans (including the Nigerian ‘crotch-bomber’ and the Ft. Hood shooting) and comes to the conclusion that the real problem is our framing of the war on terror as just that – a war:
Because we chose to treat counter-terrorist operations as a “war”, we completely botched our ability to take down terrorist networks. We focused our intelligence resources on preparing for two invasions, not taking down terrorist groups. We focused on the Sisyphean task of “securing our borders” and the promoted useless security theater at the airports instead of focusing on finding individuals and groups that actually pose threats.
Because we chose to treat counter-terrorist operations as a “war”, we handicapped our intelligence officers by torturing terror suspects, which led to a ton of false information and helped terrorists recruit people. Because we chose to ignore the rule of law and instead detained terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and other places, we lost our ability to “flip” minor terror suspects and get them to inform on the bigger fish or even re-integrate them into their organizations so we could track their movements.
In short, because we decided to wage a “war on terror”–we cut ourselves off from the best counter-terrorism tools we have.
I find that any time we decide to declare war on something other than another country we tend to botch the job. The war on crime, for instance, or the war on drugs. Culture warriors should ask the government to wage a war on Christmas.
So it was no great surprise that the war on terror should suffer the same fate, that our treatment of this dilemma as a war should have unintended consequences. Alex is exactly correct. Had we treated the threat of terrorism as a criminal problem we would have likely done a much better job at addressing the real threats to our security, and would have devoted resources to intercepting terrorists rather than waging two actual wars.
But it is much easier to slap the war label on something. It opens the door to endless resources, time, and expansion of federal power and especially the power of the presidency which grew enormously during the Bush administration and shows no signs of stopping.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Retourkutsche, E.D. Kain. E.D. Kain said: The problem with waging war on terror http://tinyurl.com/y8pqjk7 @trueslant [...]
Metaphors matter.
Indeed they do.
In response to another comment. See in context »You may want to treat terrorism as a criminal problem, but the terrorists view themselves as warriors. This distinction tells all. So while we busily attempt to arrest these “criminals,” these soldiers will continue the war.
….and your point is…? If they continue their war, and we continue to arrest them and use preventative crime/terrorism fighting measures to foil their attempts, I fail to see the problem….
In response to another comment. See in context »If a criminal robs me on the street, I would very much like for law enforcement to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute him. But, if a warrior comes at me wielding a weapon of any kind, I don’t want to arrest him, I want to kill him before he kills me. Generally, we call that “war.”
I’m pretty sure you’re using a poor definition of “warrior.” If someone calling themselves a warrior attacks you on the street with a weapon he would still be considered a criminal (not a warrior or a soldier, or whatever) by the courts. Given that we are engaged in a war on a tactic (terrorism) and the players we are waging said war against are non-state actors with no “army” I’d say they qualify more as criminals – more akin to an international mafia – than “warriors.”
In response to another comment. See in context »If someone calling themselves a warrior attacks me on the street, I could not care less what the courts consider him – I’d be dead. (Self-defense is rather ineffective against someone who is prepared to die “in battle.”) Law enforcement is a weak tool for a dead man. The problem with making an analogy with the mafia is that the mafia members are not suicidal.
Like it or not, it is the “soldiers of Allah” that set the framework in which we must act. So my definition of warrior is beside the point.
Furthermore, I’d like to deal with the sponsors, often safely ensconced beyond the reach of law enforcement. And I’d like to do this with or without the permission of the host country. Again, we call this “war.”
Andy McCarthy had an interesting post on this very topic on Sunday. Money quote: “In their minds, litigation success equals national-security success.” Find it here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmQ5NDcyMjZlYzI2Mzc4ZmVlNTNlNzhlYWVmOWMyMDk=
Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Moore,
Criminals attack people on the streets of the United States with weapons not infrequently (enough). There have been (and are) gangs of organized criminals in this country who are every bit as dangerous and well armed as al Qaeda (and like al Qaeda, funded by the narcotics trade) yet it is the FBI, DEA, and ATF who battle them, not the army.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Kain,
You are quite correct that a “war on terror” is like a war on hammers, it is an attack on the weapon of the enemy, not the enemy. However where I might differ from you (and Mr. Knapp) is that it was not not some conceptual dis-function or lack of foresight that resulted in the declaration of war on “terror”. Rather it was a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney wanted a real war in Iraq and a “war on terror” was an excellent entrée. Putting the US on a war footing “against terror” was just the first step to a war footing against Iraq.
I agree, although I think we come to the same conclusion from opposite sides. Declaring war on something which simply cannot be warred against is a blank check to stop thinking seriously about it. In the “war on drugs,” the name gave us license to stop thinking about the role of supply and demand, and the “war on terror” has allowed us to do basically anything to oppose “evil” without entertaining thoughts about how our actions in this pursuit may breed more of the anger we seek to combat.
Any “war” on an abstract concept is folly; it’s rather disturbing that adults in this country insist on empty symbolism when this truth is so self-evident.
If ever a guy needed waterboarding, this rich muslim terrorist does…..or shall we wait to his brother muslim terrorists actually bring down aircraft…..?
That’s funny Andy. It appears he’s talking up a storm without any need for torture. Something tells me the torture impulse is less about information and more about revenge.
In response to another comment. See in context »