State versus the Anti-State, Post Modern War
A look at President Bush's response to 911
In regards to Churchill's "melancholy paradox" Wohlstetter wrote,
"If peace were founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on symmetrical nuclear powers, this would be, as Churchill has said, "a melancholy paradox;" nonetheless a most comforting one." That simple thought caused me to dash off the following thoughts:
In the late 1950s America charted a defense strategy that Churchill termed "a melancholy paradox". Peace was founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on symmetrical nuclear powers. This we now know as MAD, mutually assured destruction. America and the Soviet Union lived in fear of a "First Strike" and both lived in grim realization of the other's ability to launch a massive "Second Strike". This spawned 30 years of Cold War maneuvering. MAD worked because we knew where the Soviets were and they knew where we were. I remeber the Rand Surveys where they would rank American cities as to their likelihood as targets in nuclear war. As a child I grew up in Scranton which was about 50 on the list as I remember it. We could target them and even if we missed their leadership we could cripple their system.
As long as the mutual terror was state terror the state was always vulnerable. On September 11, 2001 a new terrible enemy arose and launched a "First Strike" terror attack. The enemy which we call al-Qaeda is not a state, it is a loose knit group based in Wahhabi Islam. The strategy that protected us through the Cold War was now applied to a non-state "First Strike" Scenario.
A massive "First Strike" called for an immediate "Second Strike". George Bush looked immediately to his key advisors for a military solution. Obviously someone had to pay and the United States must respond. But respond to who, attack what. al-Qaeda was not a state, it lacked clearly identifiable targets. What states sponsored the terror attack? Obviously Saudi Arabia was deeply involved. The money and the majority of the participants were Saudi. Close behind was Pakistan whose ISI worked closely with al-Qaeda.
How then did the Bush advisors react? Paul Wolfowitz proposed attacking Iraq. This completely ignored a host of obvious facts such as that Iraq was not involved in the terror attack on the United States. However attacking Iraq was not without merit. Iraq was the great blemish on the Bush family honor. For the elder President Bush Iraq was a major strategy blunder. While we can debate most of the first Bush presidency Bush failed miserably in Iraq. Our military did everything asked of them but Bush snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. This was a burr under the saddle as they say in Texas of the Younger President Bush. Iraq was far easier to attack then isolated Afghanistan and most importantly at least to Wolfowitz Iraq was an enemy of Israel. I do not suggest that Wolfowitz has dual loyalties but Wolfowitz sees the world through Likud tinted glasses. Bush disregarded Iraq for the time being and went with Afghanistan as a target. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were key allies in our old cold war strategy so the Bush crew took them off the list. Afghanistan was a good possibility because as a country it had few friends.
Attacking Afghanistan is an interesting choice. Imagine that a man came home to find a man raping his wife. That man then goes out and picks out a weaker friend of the rapist to thrash as revenge for the rape.
Afghanistan is surrounded by Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Iran was viewed as an enemy by the Bush team so there was no loss to the US no matter how Iran reacted to an Invasion. (N.B. Perhaps Bush's greatest weakness is that he sometimes rashly categorizes opponents as enemies when he does not need to do so.) Turkmenistan was pursuing a non-aligned course. Uzbekistan was a secret ally with the United States against al-Qaeda so we could count on their support. During the Clinton Presidency US Green Berets were put into Uzbekistan and even conducted covert missions in Afghanistan. Tajikistan had a close affinity with the Northern Alliance so they were on-board for an invasion if the NA was a part of it. Pakistan was the skunk in the woodpile so to speak.
Most of Afghanistan was in the hands of Taliban. The Taliban was a creation of Pakistan's CIA, the ISI, with the help and financing of Saudi Arabian Intelligence. Part of the price of Saudi Arabian support was al-Qaeda. Pakistan was between the rock and the hard place. As a state Pakistan was targetable so being a prudent man General Musharraf deemed it better to give up Afghanistan then to face American wrath.
The United States then rolled through Afghanistan in a brilliant fashion. The combination of massive air power, the Northern Alliance, Special Forces, and CIA commando teams were ideally suited to attacking and destroying Taliban. It was Air-Mobil warfare in a way Robert McNamara never imagined . There was however a small problem in that Taliban was not the one who attacked us, al-Qaeda did. The Afghan invasion was costly to al-Qaeda but not destructive. They delivered a "First Strike" and our response was annoying, irritating, but not destruction in the way necessary to make a MAD like strategy successful.
To make matters even worse in November2001 the United States allowed thousands of Taliban, ISI operatives and al-Qaeda men to leave Kunduz Afghanistan by plane. We do not know who got on those planes. It is very possible even probable that top terrorist leaders including Osama Bin-Laden merely got on a plane and slipped away to freedom. What we do know is that Mullah Omar, Osama Bin-laden, al-Zawahiri and many others slipped through our fingers. Our Second Strike was unable to find much less touch our enemies.
What did we really accomplish against al-Qaeda and their supporters. Today Osama Bin-Laden is a free man living a life not terribly different than how he lived before 9/11. The same goes for Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. al-Qaeda has paid a price but it is a price they are willing to pay. Their supporters primarily Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have escaped very lightly. In Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Abdullah who was very close to al-Qaeda was preempted by the return of Fahd to day to day oversight of the monarchy. Losing the Regency was a small price to pay for his active role in the attack upon America. In Pakistan Musharraf became a defacto vassal state of the US to avoid the retribution that was so richly deserved. al-Qaeda is larger and in many ways more deadly than ever. The states that supported al-Qaeda flourish.
Has the US response been so terrible as to discourage any future terrorist attack on the US? No, our second strike capability is so flawed as to future action against the US is virtually assure future action against the US.
In the Post Cold War Era we have replaced MAD with MAR (modestly accomplished retaliation). When it came time to sow salt in their fields all we could do is sow their fields with the blood of our children. When it came time to fight we allowed the fight to be subverted to the foreign policy goals of a third power. After Afghanistan we allowed a Likudnik cabal to trick us into war with Iraq.
How do we fight non-state terrorism?
First of all true believers who are willing to die for a cause are almost impossible to stop. Still we must adopt a strategy that makes a significant portion of the less than true believers think of the cost.
First of all a terrorist is one who plans, prepares, or implements an act of terror but we must also consider those who aid and shelter them to be terrorists as well. If a mosque or a club is used by the terrorists then it should be destroyed. If a company helps terrorists it should be dealt with severely. If a country supports terrorists then it should pay a severe price.
False dichotomies of good terrorist and bad terrorist are extremely destructive. All terrorism must be seen in the same light. The Bush policy of sheltering the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq sends the wrong message to nations considering aid or comfort to Terrorists. No terrorist should be tolerated.
Our strategy must be morally comprehensible. If torture is wrong then it is always wrong. The Bush policy of stripping "enemies" of their human rights or protection under the Geneva Convention is morally wrong. What President Bush allowed at Abu Ghraib prison was barbaric, immoral, and evil. Even our friends in the Moslem world look at this abomination and ask how can we claim "One Nation Under God" and then do the evil we do. It validates everything that the extremists suggest when the call us "The Great Satan". The essence of fighting terrorism is massive response in a matter befitting One Nation Under God.
