By Brigitte L. Nacos
International terrorism was, is, and will remain for the
foreseeable future a real and probably the most serious threat against the United States and many of its allies. To be sure, the United
States has not been attacked for more than five years
since the strikes against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But this lull does not mean that terrorists are no longer
interested in striking inside American borders or that post-9/11 preventative
measures have made the homeland secure. The changes in Washington on the heels of Tuesday’s elections must include a comprehensive review of U.S. counterterrorist policies and the formulation of a grand strategy that
emphasizes multi-pronged non-military efforts instead of a foremost reliance on
military responses. This can only be achieved in a truly bi-partisan effort
that transcends politics as usual, sends a strong message of American unity to Osama bin
Laden, and creates conditions less likely to increase the number of terrorist recruits and potential recruits around the world. The exit of Secretary of Denfense Rumsfeld and the return of some members of the Bush 41 national security/foreign policy crew maybe a hopeful sign here.
The British domestic spy agency MI5 just revealed shocking information: its agents foiled five major terrorist plots since the quadruple suicide strikes against London’s transit system in the summer of 2005 and are now tracking some 30 plots involving 1,600 suspects. But while MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller mentioned that the discovered plots often had connections to Pakistan, such direct links are no longer necessary in the age of global media and communication. Today, terrorist propaganda, teaching and recruitment reach impressionable young Muslims in all parts of the world via the Internet, DVD’s, and television networks, such as Hezbollah’s Al-Manar. An effective counterterrorist policy must find ways to stop or at least reduce this avalanche of terrorist propaganda and replace it with counterterrorist public diplomacy. Yes, this is easier said than done. But unless policy-makers recognize how much the power of terrorist propaganda and indoctrination relies on modern-day communication technology, they will not look for credible counter-measures to stop the terrorists’ indoctrination and recruitment successes.
In certain situations, military responses are justified, most obviously, when the location of terrorist training camps and hiding places are known or when there is proof a state’s involvement in terrorist strikes. Iraq was not such a case. Instead of removing an alleged terrorist threat, the invasion of Iraq was used by terrorists outside the country as the most effective recruitment tool. Thus, the massive military response did not decrease but increase the threat of terrorism.
Intelligence, intelligence sharing between reliable
international partners, cooperation in law enforcement, diplomacy, and public
diplomacy—along with military options in specific cases--must be combined into a
new, comprehensive, long-term grand strategy of counterterrorism. W hile there is nothing wrong with taking a look back, the new Congress (and the administration) would be well advised to devote more energy on a new, comprehensive counterterrorism policy.
Comments