Defining Victory in the War on Terror: A view from the Middle East
I’ve written several columns and one long article which tackled the slippery definition of “victory” in a global war against terrorists. (Here’s a link to my article, “Millennium War,” in the January 3, 2005 Weekly Standard.) Recently I got into a discussion with a senior military officer now serving in the Middle East– and he’s a very well-informed senior officer. So I sent him an email and asked him to take a shot at defining victory.
QUESTION: In your view, what constitutes a ?victory? in the Global War on Terror?
ANSWER:
Victory in this ideological struggle that has galvanized America since 9/11 will occur when terror is no longer an attractive option for Muslim youth, and when moderate Muslim voices dominate the debate about the future of Islamic societies in a globalized, modern world. Military action is a necessary, but insufficient component of the formula for victory. The end state we desire can only be achieved through coordinated diplomatic, economic and social action backed-up by well-targeted military engagement.
In the months since September 11, 2001, we have made tremendous strides in this battle against al-Qaida and its Islamic extremist partners around the world. These significant achievements must be understood and appreciated. However, there is a long way to go.
The extremists that brought terror to our shores are intent on achieving ? by force of arms - a xenophobic and repressive state based on a skewed understanding of Islam. They desire a future for the Muslim world that looks like something out of the seventh century with an extremist and intolerant interpretation of Islam. Their future-world would be a much larger version of the backward and authoritarian regime in Taliban-led Afghanistan, with no scope for liberty, basic women?s rights, or the freedom of religion. Such a future runs counter to basic concepts of freedom and human dignity, and is not what the vast majority of Muslims want for their children or grandchildren. The extremist-terrorists, however, are clever in hiding their ultimate goals. Their campaign plan is to mask their objectives while playing on unfounded, but deep-seeded fears in the Islamic world about the west via an intimidated news media, and with help from co-opted financial, educational and weapons smuggling organizations across with regional and global scope.
Our counter to the extremist plan is to apply unrelenting military pressure on the leadership and terrorists operatives that spearhead the ideology, while simultaneously applying the western financial, diplomatic, educational and social skills necessary to help Islamic states build effective governance that cares for people?s needs, allows them political participation, and dampens the appetite for violent action against perceived repression. This battle between moderation and extremism requires all nations to engage in the struggle ? pressuring terrorist networks, and helping the governments of the Islamic world to succeed for their people.
In the short-term, we look to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, building the institutions necessary for these sovereign states to fight off terrorists and to provide the services necessary for their people. We made strong progress in Afghanistan during 2004, and fought through elections in Iraq in early 2005; we remain positive about the future, but there is still a hard fight ahead of us.
In 2005, we also aim to help Pakistan and Saudi Arabia help themselves to fight and win against the terrorist threats confronting them. With Coalition support and patience, Pakistan made enormous strides against the Al Qaida network during 2004. We will continue our partnership with Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is now keenly aware of the menace it faces, and will continue to be a focus of our efforts to build regional counter-terrorist capabilities and strong participatory institutions during the coming years. We are also embarked on programs across eastern Africa, the Levant and South Asia designed to engage their governments and people in constructive programs to inhibit the potential for terrorist movements taking root in their borders.
Across the CENTCOM region, our focus is on building indigenous capability to confront terrorists, deny terrorist sanctuary, to develop capable intelligence agencies and military forces, and to assist progress in the development of inclusive, democratic, and just societies that meet the legitimate aspirations of their people. This focus calls for continued movement toward fewer, rather than more US troops; toward sustained counter-terrorism training and assistance programs to the military forces in the region; and toward sustained support for a moderate, peaceful process of forward progress in the Muslim world. Holding to these priorities, we and our Coalition allies can assure that victory is achieved in the struggle against the terrorists that attacked our way of life.
Long, thoughtful, and detailed.
His answer is wonderful but there’s a small omission: all of this reform must take place before an act of terrorism with mass casualties particularly one using a nuclear weapon. The ultra-conservation states of the Middle East (and their go-along-to-get-along friends) are trying to slow the rate of change as much as possible but that’s a strategy that will end badly for everyone.
Comment by Dave Schuler — 4/6/2005 @ 7:32 am
A little wordy. How about: “Victory is when any Moslem who proposes to his fellows that killing unbelievers is a Good Idea is immediately reported by them to their government, which prosecutes him.
Comment by PersonFromPorlock — 4/6/2005 @ 10:27 am
PersonFromPorlock: We’re trying to do this by spreading democracy, not by destroying it.
Comment by Tedd McHenry — 4/6/2005 @ 10:45 am
How about?: “Victory is when any Moslem who proposes to his fellows that killing unbelievers is a Good Idea is… laughed out of the room.”
Comment by Brian Moore — 4/6/2005 @ 11:06 am
I favor (defining victory as) all of the following: - an american tourist is safe anywhere in the world (means everyone is safe). - no need for TSA or container inspection (or border patrols) or other “taxes” - - i.e. taxes that reduce our productivity, competitiveness and well-being (relative to others) - including the 10,000 productive-lifetime equivalents lost each year to TSA “waiting in line” - victory means a return to being able to trust/deter our neighbor w/ its benefit to individual liberty - - v. having to treat everyone as an untrustworthy/undeterable neighbor, and how this harms liberty - - (granted, this is unobtainable until there’s some manner of world-wide civil society) - - (implying that it’s not possible to return to an era of borders that work - w/out a dark-age)
Comment by Ari Tai — 4/6/2005 @ 11:20 am
Short term: When the “Anti-American Terrorist” booth at Career Day has no line in front of it. In fact, nobody is even willing to work in the booth.
Longer term: The people in the Middle East are freed and Al Qaida is rooted from its last strongholds in Indonesia, the Philipines, etc.
Comment by Paul — 4/6/2005 @ 11:37 am
Remember when they said the Soviet Union would never fall? People want freedom.
Comment by TallDave — 4/6/2005 @ 11:39 am
How about defining victory as: when fewer Americans die each year of terrorism than of auto accidents, or accidental drowning, or drug-related violence? Perhaps because then we’d already be done? It’s not that terrorism isn’t horrible: it is. Or that it isn’t morally repugnant: it is. But the moral repugnancy of the thing isn’t at issue: 60,000 deaths by car per year, or thousands upon thousands of morders, are equally if not more devestating on our society. Now, of course, come the cries: but terrorists hate us! they want to destroy us! Which is true, and there’s no excusing it. But the realty is: they fly planes into buildings because there is no way they can destroy us. The only terrorists organized enough to do even that were those who had grown up in modern Germany (like Mohammad Atta). Under no circumstances, even with nuclear weapons, will they ultimately win. Unless, of course, we corrupt America from the inside by choking its economy under military spending or focusing ourselves on destroying the small cockroaches who, though hating us, have no power over us.
Comment by Adam — 4/6/2005 @ 12:19 pm
victory should be defined as happening when we, all of us, are invited to Mecca.
Comment by tb — 4/6/2005 @ 12:20 pm
Adam, If terrorists succeed with a nuke there is a strong likelihood of genocide. That’s an unacceptable risk. Yours, Wince
Comment by Wince and Nod — 4/6/2005 @ 12:35 pm
“based on a skewed understanding of Islam” The only skewed understanding of Islam is by non-Muslims, including our government and military. As Robert Spencer points out every single day, we(the non-Muslims) seem to be the only ones who don’t understand Islam. As to this senior officer’s description of the jihadist’s ‘ideal state’ it already exists in Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia has spent thirty five years exporting that ideology to every corner of the globe. Islam needs an internal reformation. Pontificating westerners with no real knowledge of Islam repeating CAIR’s(Muslim Brotherhood USA)carefully crafted deception are not helping matters.
Comment by Swami Hill — 4/6/2005 @ 12:39 pm
I have no quarrel with the officer’s explanation, but I am not a Muslim. Therein lies the problem. It is Muslims who must conclude that terrorists who fight in the name of Islam are fighting on behalf of a “skewed” version of that religion. That conclusion must then be acted upon. This is not a challenge we can accept for them, nor is it one we can avoid by reassuring ourselves that, obviously, “Islam is peace.”
Comment by Zathras — 4/6/2005 @ 12:44 pm
Wince - A strong likelihood? Unless they detonate it in Wyoming I’d say its a certainty. And if Martians had lasers we’d all be toast, but you don’t see anyone building a gigantic space fleet. Gigantic fears with small probabilities, and especially with equally small chances of stopping them if they do happen, are not worth risking far more likely disasters. The questions are: a) how likely is suck a thing to happen? and b) is it possible to make that event any less likely without simultaneously making the end of American power more likely? As for a), the availability of nuclear material aside, we must deal with the question of getting it in-country unnoticed (fairly easy) and getting it near a city unnoticed (unlikely, given that even radiology patients get stopped by DC cops these days). Equally influential on the probability is the question: would anyone with the sophistication to do this from start to finish desire it to happen? Terrorists hate us, true, but they are selfish like anyone else. They want their 72 virgins in heaven, and control of the Middle East as well. They’re playing a game here: seem to be weak and oppressed, and strike out against the US just enough to incite others to follow suit. If they started nuking US cities, there goes the their dramatic/psychological advantage, not to mention here comes a wrath mightier than Allah’s onto themselves. As for b), how exactly will the high costs of democratizing and pacifying the Middle East make a nuclear incident less likely? Every country, even the most developed, have homicidal maniacs. Ted Kazynsky and Osama Bin Ladin are only separated by the number of their followers. Unless we can enact some sort of totalitarian democratic system (as one commentator mentioned above with the idea of arresting those who express dislike of the US), there will always be room for violence against us. Our slow victory, if it comes, (which seems unlikely) will only give the inevitably dying fundamentalists time to plot one final strike against us. Is terrorism a high risk? Of course. Worth fearing? Of course. If we could defeat it, with billions of dollars or millions of casualties it would be a worthwhile cause. But we cannot, unless we plan to kill or enslave the entire Middle East.
Comment by Adam — 4/6/2005 @ 12:47 pm
I’ve always thought the war on terror will be over when the biggest thing people complain about is that too many Arabs are stealing their jobs. I hope someday to hear young kids, born after 9/11 with little memory of terrorism, lament the situation (much like with India now), and I will just smile.
Comment by Keith — 4/6/2005 @ 1:00 pm
When Dante and Virgil in the Divine Comedy started their descent into Hell, they came upon the fiery city of Dis from which a great “wailing” (Italian: “un duolo”) was heard. Then, in one of the most amazing but most overlooked passages of this masterpiece - a passage quite relevant to this discussion,- Dante exclaimed that he could discern the mosques (It. “meschite”) within the city. A lot could be said about this passage and what it means. In 20th century literary criticism, for example, a huge and as yet unsettled battle has been raging over the extent Dante may have been influenced by Islam in the creation of his masterpiece. Or, to put it in other words, what did Dante know of Islam? One thing we can be certain about: he did not have a very favorable impression of it. His description of Muhammad and Ali later on in the Comedy is chillingly blood-curdling. For our purposes here, this passage points to the fact that the “battle” between Islam and Christianity goes back a long time…..for nearly 1500 years in fact. 9/11 was simply the most spectacular event in this struggle within living memory. It couldn’t have been forseen, to be sure. But it should have been expected. (But that’s another tangent I won’t get into here). With all this in mind, and assuming one agrees with my train of thought, our military officer now serving in the Middle East has it all wrong. Or rather, he has it only partially right, a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees. To be short: the fact is, there is no such thing as Islamic civilization. That ended in 1258 or thereabouts with the Mongol destruction of Baghdad. Even by then, the glory days of Islamic civilization had long since passed. (And just as an aside: it is important to realize that what we call classic Islamic civilization was really Iranian civilization in Islamic garb….but that too is another tangent I won’t get into here). Since the 13th century, the lands of Islam have stagnated to the point of paralysis in just about every sphere of human activity. The Middle East today presents a chaotic, incoherent and embarrassing example of human disintegration, practically unimaginable to a westerner. Been to Cairo recently? It’s an eye-opener. Seen the pictures of Baghdad on TV? All I see are middle-aged men walking around kind of in a daze with nothing to do…..or “having coffee” in a coffee house (because they’re unemployed), while CNN chirps about how “authentic” all this is. A vast gypsy and peasant population totally unconnected to the modern world and with no way out. The bottom line is this: any attempt to “reform” the Middle East in any way whatsoever is doomed to failure for a thousand reasons I’d love to go into here, but can’t. Its inhabitants are really medical and mental patients for which no cure is available. In my considered judgment, the Middle East will always be a backwater region of the world, unproductive and unresponsive to reason. We will simply have to marginalize it, although its doing a pretty good job of that on its own. I salute our military officer and his mates in the Middle East. But all that money and blood is for naught. Once we realize this unpleasant fact, we can learn to deal with this unsavory remnant of a once proud civilization in realistic and productive ways.
Comment by WiseGuy — 4/6/2005 @ 3:43 pm
…Its inhabitants are really medical and mental patients for which no cure is available. Can you say consanguinity?
Comment by Parabellum — 4/6/2005 @ 3:58 pm
(Parabellum)(Parapablum?): Can you say consanguinity? —-> Yes, I can. But I won’t.
Comment by WiseGuy — 4/6/2005 @ 4:07 pm
More important than most of the initiatives mentioned for discouraging jihadist recruitment would be providing goals, purposes, and gainful opportunities for the middle-class young men who now are at emotional and vocational dead-ends in the ME. Being well-off and educated leaves one still vulnerable to the drawn-out agony of boredom and uselessness which is so easily cured by becoming a Warrior for Allah.
Comment by Brian H — 4/6/2005 @ 5:28 pm
The distinguishing characteristic of modern terrorism which makes it such a frightening threat is the willingness of significant numbers of individuals to engage in suicide attacks. An attacker who is not merely willing to risk his life but who consciously intends to die in the assault is extremely difficult to block. Deterrence cannot be effective because the prospect of punishment or retaliation is irrelevant. And if the attackers don’t have to plan for a safe getaway (or any getaway whatsoever), their range of options and the vulnerability of potential targets is increased enormously. Psychologically, it is very frightening to most people who ARE afraid of death to contemplate an enemy who embraces death. One of the worst aspects of 9/11 was that 19 people (and presumably many others waiting in the wings) were fanatic enough to commit suicide for the sake of murdering and terrorizing random innocent victims. How do you defend against that? Nobody is safe from that mentality. (Later it turned out that some of the 9/11 attackers may have been kept in the dark about the suicidal nature of their operation. This was actually quite encouraging, since it meant it was NOT all that easy to assemble large numbers of terrorists unafraid of death.) Victory in the War on Terrorism will be achieved when the number and deadliness of suicide bombers/attackers declines to a level which is statistically indistinguishable from the number and deadliness of psychos in any society who from time to time go on killing rampages and then commit suicide rather than be captured alive. When the normal disincentives of punishment for criminal behavior are sufficient to deter most such behavior, we will have returned to the normalcy of human nature. The risk of being a terrorist victim will be little different from the risk of being in an airplane crash or at the epicenter of a massive earthquake. The “terror” in terrorism will be gone.
Comment by Daniel Wiener — 4/7/2005 @ 1:14 am
“a xenophobic and repressive state based on a skewed understanding of Islam.” The only person with a skewed understanding of Islam is the author of that email. Go read jihadwatch - http://www.jihadwatch.com, by Robert Spencer. Check out my post here: http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/02/surprising_terrorist_demographics.php#c7 The only use for the US military in the GWOT is for the USMC to round up the US resident believers of Islam and deport them forcibly. And for this war to be finally over, the air force must drop neutron bombs on areas of Muslim population. At the very least, we need to guard both the Mexican and Canadian borders like a fortress initially, and to stop Muslim immigration ASAP. Unfortunately, I think it’s going to take a nuke on US soil to make this point.
Comment by 2468 — 4/7/2005 @ 1:44 am
Why do our leaders, from Don Rumsfeld on down, think of this war as three-dimensional, when it really is four-dimensional? I.e.,they talk; (1)Diplomatic persuasion; (2)Economic (social?)power; backed up by (3)military power when the first two fail. Your “senior military officer” writes: “The end state we desire can only be achieved through coordinated diplomatic, economic and social action backed-up by well-targeted military engagement.” We are really in a War for Minds and the key tool we are neglecting, the fourth dimension, is “Information Power.” We do have to kill off the really bad actors in the center of the circle, but we need to focus most of all on mind-changing for the great majority in the outer rings. Aren’t we supposed to be the information technology leaders of the world? It is not a job for Madison avenue propaganda types, but surely we could do the mind changing job if we put our best minds to it, starting at the top with the President to make it meaningful!
Comment by gordon johnson — 4/7/2005 @ 3:51 pm