A strategy for the war on terror

raytri · #1 (**permalink**) 02-12-2006, 10:49 AM

I wrote this for another site a little while back. But I find it useful to refer to give the current debate about whether the "war" on terror should be viewed as a primarily military or primarily law-enforcement issue. I'll have another post on that particular subject when I get some time.

Quote:

The Iraq logic hole

Today, for better or worse, Iraq is the central front of the war on terror. But should it be? Is it the best way to spend our anti-terrorism dollars? Is it making the situation better, or worse?

By asking those questions, I am not suggesting we should pull out of Iraq. That would be irresponsible. Having gotten into this mess, we have no choice but to see it through. But setting Iraq aright and fighting terror are two separate objectives, especially if you believe -- as I do -- that Iraq has very little to do with fighting terrorism in the first place. By looking at the terror threat objectively, and the Iraq experience through a cost/benefit lens, we can answer some very important questions, such as:

1. If we had it to do over again, should we have invaded Iraq?

2. Are we getting the most bang for our buck?

3. How much blood and treasure are we willing to spend defending against the threat of terror?

This is the first of two articles exploring those questions. The first asks the question, "Is Iraq helping or hurting?" as well as "What is a terrorist?" The second asks "How big is the terror threat?" as well as suggesting a more rational and effective way to combat it.

Part I: Fighting them over there instead of over here, or "What is a terrorist, anyway?"

As it related to the war on terror, our invasion of Iraq has often been billed as "fighting terrorists over there instead of over here." But is this true?

To answer this question, we need to first define "terrorist." That word is grossly overused, confusing the issue of who we're fighting and why.

In Iraq and globally, I see three kinds of opponents we're facing:

Terrorists: These are the people behind 9/11 and other actual terror attacks -- Al Qaeda and its ilk. They are the relatively few people with the skills, money, patience, imagination and access to pull off attacks inside the United States.

Jihadists: These are people who dislike us but have limited opportunities to act on that dislike. Our invasion of Iraq has both swelled their ranks (thanks to outrage over Western/Christian occupation of a Muslim country) and provided ample opportunities to do something about: It's far easier to slip across the porous Iraqi border and take potshots at U.S. troops than it is to get into the United States itself to launch an attack.

Insurgents: These are native Iraqis who are fighting us as occupiers, for whatever motive. They were not terrorists before we invaded, and most of them weren't jihadists, either; Saddam Hussein did not take kindly to freelancers.

Having defined our opponents, how does that apply to Iraq?

Well, the U.S. military says 90 percent of the insurgency is native Iraqis. RIght off the bat that tells us that most of the people we're fighting and killing in Iraq were not serious opponents until we invaded.

Well, how about the remaining 10 percent that are foreign fighters? Are they terrorists?

Few people think so, and logic suggests why. Would a true terrorist -- the kind who can plan and pull off spectacular attacks inside the United States -- drop everything and head to Iraq to fight well-armed,l well-prepared soldiers? Of course not. To believe that you have to assume terrorists are stupid, and they're not. True terrorists will just keep on doing what they're good at: planning new and bigger terror attacks.

On the other hand, if you're a jihadist angered by the invasion of Iraq, would this not be your golden opportunity to act on your feelings? Of course.

So that's who we're killing in Iraq: native insurgents and low-level foreign jihadists, most of whom would never have shown up on our threat radar if we hadn't invaded Iraq. And in exchange for the opportunity to create enemies that need killing, we're helping to train and radicalize an entire generation of Middle Eastern men.

Meanwhile our military is overstretched. And by being tied down in Iraq it is unavailable to deal with real threats, or to serve as a credible threat of force. Iran isn't exactly quaking in its shoes at the prospect of U.S. intervention, for example, in large part because such a threat has no credibility. What would we invade them with, a Reserve public affairs battalion?

As far as the war on terror is concerned, then, Iraq is worse than a distraction: it is actively making things worse.

Then there's the cost. Thus far Iraq has cost us $200 billion (www.costofwar.com). So it's not just a distraction, it's a hugely expensive one.

Some people argue that Iraq isn't about terror, it's about spreading democracy. Fine; I'm okay in principle with the idea that we should knock down dictators and free oppressed peoples. But I have two points to make on that:

1. You have to be up-front about it. The invasion of Iraq was sold under the banner of the war on terror. If the administration had said "hey, let's spend $200 billion to knock over Saddam because he's a bad guy and we need to free the Iraqi people", he would have been laughed out of town.

2. How much are we willing to spend to do so? There are 27 million Iraqis. That means we've spent $7,500 per head so far bringing them democracy, never mind the cost in lives and damage to Iraqi infrastructure. The final total will be far, far higher. Democracy is valuable, but not infinitely so given limited resources. How much are we willing to spend?

Part II: How big is the terror threat, and what should we do about it?

When allocating limited national resources to defend the property and health of our citizenry, the very first step has to be defining the risk. We spend a lot of money researching cancer cures because cancer kills millions of people every year. We spend almost no money researching a cure for mucopolysaccharidosis, which usually kills its victims by age 25 but only affects about 200 people nationwide. That's a stark example of cost-benefit analysis.

So how big is the terror threat? One way to view it is to compare the risk of dying in a terror attack to other causes of death in the United States.

Since 1990, there have been four major terrorist attacks in the United States: Oklahoma City, the first Trade Center attack, the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and 9/11.

That's four attacks in 14 years; hardly a crisis. Further, half of those attacks were the work of disgruntled individuals, unrelated to any broader terror movement. And they come against the background of a steady 20-year decline in the number of terror attacks worldwide. The attacks have increased in lethality and spectacle, but there are fewer of them.

Now let's look at casualties. Those four attacks caused roughly 3,175 deaths over 14 years, in a population of about 300 million. That's an average of 230 deaths a year -- far closer to mucopolysaccarhidosis than cancer. Put another way, the average American has a 0.0000008% chance of dying in a terror attack in any given year.

If you look at causes of death in the United States (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm ) you'll find that terrorism is right up there with such national crises as falling from a ladder (406 deaths in 2002), drowning in your bathtub (352 deaths), riding a "special agricultural vehicle" (149 deaths) and "overexertion, travel and privation" (128 deaths). Heck, more people accidentally shot themselves to death (243) than died at the hands of terrorists.

Put into perspective, terrorism isn't even close to a national threat. It does not threaten our national survival, and it does not threaten the life of average Americans in any meaningful way. One could plausibly argue that our response to terrorism has done more damage to Americans than terrorism itself. 9/11 killed 3,000 people and caused several billion dollars in economic damage. Our response has killed even more people and cost $400 billion, all of it borrowed. The terrorists could only dream of inflicting as much harm on us as we have inflicted upon ourselves.

Of course we still have to combat terrorism, and of course our response should be outsized; we don't just passively accept the murder of American citizens. And there are psychological and economic aftershocks from spectacular stunts like 9/11. But knowing the level of threat we face can help us respond rationally to it.

So how much effort should we put into fighting terrorism? Knowing the scope of the problem suggests that we're spending far too much money for too little return. Critics of the Iraq campaign had it right: terror is better handled as a law enforcement and intelligence matter than as a military one. Such an approach also has the advantage of being far cheaper than sending in troops.

When clear targets are identified, military force can be beneficial: the campaign in Afghanistan is a prime example of that. But the military clearly should play a supporting role, not a starring one. We are better served keeping our soldiers available as a credible deterrent and to fend off true threats to national survival.

So what works? In Part I I explained why the "war on terror" justifications for Iraq are nonsense. I think four broad strategies offer the most chances of success:

1. Continue the ongoing effort to boost our intelligence gathering abilities, so we can root out terrorist cells and choke off terrorist financing. This includes the less noxious parts of the Patriot Act, allowing the law enforcement and intelligence communities to share information.

2. Increase security spending here at home. If they can't get in, they can't attack us. Such spending pays other dividends as well, tightening the defenses against smuggling and illegal immigration. This category includes investing in alternative energies, mass transit and conservation, because reducing our reliance on oil (and especially foreign oil) will reduce our need to become enmeshed in volatile regions of the world, as well as reduce the political influence of oil-rich countries.

3. International cooperation. Work with foreign intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to infilitrate and destroy terrorist cells. Work with foreign militaries to spread the burden of military operations. Isolate and destroy regimes that are active supporters of terrorism, using a clearly-drawn definition so that every nation is aware which side of the line they are on.

4. Foreign aid. It does no good to kill terrorists if we don't change the conditions that generate them: oppression, poverty, hopelessness, lack of education, lack of opportunity. We spend a paltry $18 billion a year on foreign aid; we should double or triple that number and target it on areas and issues related to terror. This means ending support for repressive regimes in the Middle East and devoting money to promoting education, democracy and opportunity in the region. Even if we spend $50 billion a year on foreign aid, it would be cheaper than the staggeringly expensive war we're currently pursuing. And you get a lot more PR benefit out of building schools than you do from dropping bombs.

charliepage · #2 (**permalink**) 02-12-2006, 11:44 AM

It's a good analysis overall but I have to say the "isn't even close to a national threat" part is absolutely ridiculous. If what you mean is we don't need to go to other countries and mess with peoples affairs, then I agree. But if you mean it isn't a top concern, then you are 100% wrong. What you failed to mention, you did say 230 die on average, a year, but what you forgot to mention is the terror attacks thus far have been (the twin towers) with trying to destroy a building.

The biggest building with the most people would be a college football stadium, holding 100,000 so it's not like terrorists can really kill a few million to improve the threat whereas a disease can easily and does easily, kill millions each year.

raytri · #3 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliepage";p=&quot

But if you mean it isn't a top concern, then you are 100% wrong.

I think I stated that an outsized response is justified, and that we need to take measures to protect ourselves and to kill/arrest true terrorists. But $400 billion? Especially when most of that is not domestic defense but foreign intervention?

I think it should be a major policy concern, but we're going about it in the wrong (and hideously expensive) way. It should not be consuming the resources it currently is.

stekim · #4 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 07:53 AM

Those have been my thoughts all along.

SporkLord · #5 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 07:59 AM

*clap* *clap*

Excellent, my views exactly.

Sadistic-Savior · #6 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

1. If we had it to do over again, should we have invaded Iraq?

Yes.

Given the data we had at the time, our only alternative was to hope that Saddam would not acquire WMDs. A lot of people on this forum seem confortable in trusting him at his word, despite his many attempts to interfere with inspections. The whole point of inspections was to provide an alternative to invasion, but it required Saddam's cooperation. Saddam refused to cooperate.

Even in hindsight, it is clear Saddam never really gave up his ambitions for WMDs. He was a huge wild card and we could not risk him getting ahold of that technology or perhaps even a fully functioning weapon. While it is reasonable to assume he was unlikely to use it against us directly, it is also reasonable to assume he would not have a problem using it against our allies (Israel) or giving it to other groups that WOULD use it against us (any number of terrorist groups up to and including Al Queada).

Critics claim he had no real ties with terrorist groups. even assuming this was true (and it is debatable), that does not preclude the probability that he would FORM such ties. They both shared common goals. It is not a huge leap to assume they would form such ties.

Quote:

2. Are we getting the most bang for our buck?

So far no one has shown me a more cost effective way to accomplish our goals. So I would say, yes.

Quote:

3. How much blood and treasure are we willing to spend defending against the threat of terror?

However much it takes. Contrary to popular belief, things can get much much worse. All it takes is a single nuke in the wrong hands. Once they have nukes, it is too late to turn back the clock. Even with more conventional WMDs the damage could be massive.

We are correct to seize the initiative, instead of simply rolling the dice and hoping everything turns out ok. The consequences of inaction would be catastrophic.

Quote:

As it related to the war on terror, our invasion of Iraq has often been billed as "fighting terrorists over there instead of over here." But is this true?

What we are really doing is depleting their resources. I know a lot of people seem to think that we are manufacturing enemies, but the truth is that we are providing them with fewer safe havens than they had before. That is not a bad thing.

Quote:

In Iraq and globally, I see three kinds of opponents we're facing:

Terrorists: These are the people behind 9/11 and other actual terror attacks -- Al Qaeda and its ilk. They are the relatively few people with the skills, money, patience, imagination and access to pull off attacks inside the United States.

However there was a risk that these people could be funded by governments...such as the Taliban and Saddam. Such resources would obviously amplify the amount of damage and chaos they could inflict.

Quote:

Jihadists: These are people who dislike us but have limited opportunities to act on that dislike. Our invasion of Iraq has both swelled their ranks (thanks to outrage over Western/Christian occupation of a Muslim country) and provided ample opportunities to do something about: It's far easier to slip across the porous Iraqi border and take potshots at U.S. troops than it is to get into the United States itself to launch an attack.

Free media and Democracy will erode the influence Jihadists have over time. They know this will happen. It is the reason they hate free media and democracy so much. The swelling of their ranks is not permanent. That is the whole reason they fear us.

While the opportunity for attacks may be greater under a free government, they also know they will risk the masses turning on them for it. Zarqawi himself has been quoted as voicing this fear.

Quote:

Insurgents: These are native Iraqis who are fighting us as occupiers, for whatever motive. They were not terrorists before we invaded, and most of them weren't jihadists, either; Saddam Hussein did not take kindly to freelancers.

The insurgents do not represent the will of the vast majority of Iraqis. They are comperable to the Mafia or the White Supreamist movements in the US. They are able to exploit the temporary chaos of the government while it is in transition. They will not be able to do so indefinitely.

Quote:

Well, the U.S. military says 90 percent of the insurgency is native Iraqis. RIght off the bat that tells us that most of the people we're fighting and killing in Iraq were not serious opponents until we invaded.

Not necessarily....we already know from polls that not everyone hated Saddam. It is not unreasonable to assume there is a small minority that liked Saddam's oppression because they proffitted from it in whatever way (monetarily, personal power, whatever).

Quote:

Few people think so, and logic suggests why. Would a true terrorist -- the kind who can plan and pull off spectacular attacks inside the United States -- drop everything and head to Iraq to fight well-armed,l well-prepared soldiers?

If he thought the transitional chaos afforded him the opportunity to make a political statement or to kill American soldiers, yes.

Quote:

Of course not. To believe that you have to assume terrorists are stupid, and they're not.

This statement assumes that terrorists are rational to begin with. Terrorists do not have to be stupid to be irrational. That is kinda the point of being a fanatic.

Quote:

True terrorists will just keep on doing what they're good at: planning new and bigger terror attacks.

The chaos of Iraq provides an easier target than the mainland US.

Quote:

Meanwhile our military is overstretched. And by being tied down in Iraq it is unavailable to deal with real threats, or to serve as a credible threat of force.

The "real threats" seem to change depending on whether or not the Democrats are in power...

Quote:

Iran isn't exactly quaking in its shoes at the prospect of U.S. intervention, for example, in large part because such a threat has no credibility. What would we invade them with, a Reserve public affairs battalion?

Invasion is not required to accomplish our goal. And Iran will not be the first nation to underestimate us.

Again, these people are irrational.

Quote:

Some people argue that Iraq isn't about terror, it's about spreading democracy.

The two issues are not mutually exclusive. Democracy is a means to an end. Spreading democracy is not our primary goal. It is a means of achieving our primary goal.

Quote:

2. How much are we willing to spend to do so?

However much it takes to avoid the consequences of the alternatives.

Quote:

When allocating limited national resources to defend the property and health of our citizenry, the very first step has to be defining the risk. We spend a lot of money researching cancer cures because cancer kills millions of people every year. We spend almost no money researching a cure for mucopolysaccharidosis, which usually kills its victims by age 25 but only affects about 200 people nationwide. That's a stark example of cost-benefit analysis.

The scale of the consequences of inaction must be entered into the equation. What is at stake is potentially millions of lives.

And there is a point of no return. Once they GET nukes, it is too late. The situation becomes exponentially messier. Prevention is everything.

Quote:

That's four attacks in 14 years; hardly a crisis.

Only because they did not have WMDs to attack with...

Before 911 who thought people would fly planes into buildings?

Quote:

So what works? In Part I I explained why the "war on terror" justifications for Iraq are nonsense. I think four broad strategies offer the most chances of success:

1. Continue the ongoing effort to boost our intelligence gathering abilities

No argument here.

Quote:

2. Increase security spending here at home. If they can't get in, they can't attack us.

We are trying that, but then people whine about supposed loss of freedoms. A lot of Americans (not an majority, but a lot) see such "security" as totalitarian controls imposed by the government.

Quote:

This category includes investing in alternative energies, mass transit and conservation, because reducing our reliance on oil (and especially foreign oil) will reduce our need to become enmeshed in volatile regions of the world, as well as reduce the political influence of oil-rich countries.

No argument here. I have been advocating this for a long time.

Quote:

3. International cooperation. Work with foreign intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to infilitrate and destroy terrorist cells.

I dont trust them enough to advocate cooperation with them. If they had a backbone, we would not have had to act alone in the first place. It is clear they dont have the resolve necessary to stand up to the terrorists.

Such cooperation weakens us as it forces us to compromise without seeing any true benefits.

Quote:

4. Foreign aid. It does no good to kill terrorists if we don't change the conditions that generate them: oppression, poverty, hopelessness, lack of education, lack of opportunity. We spend a paltry $18 billion a year on foreign aid; we should double or triple that number and target it on areas and issues related to terror.

No argument here. Good luck selling that to the liberals though.

stekim · #7 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Before 911 who thought people would fly planes into buildings?

The FBI, among others.

Sadistic-Savior · #8 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

The FBI, among others.

But until it actually happened it was considered a crackpot theory. No one really believed it could happen.

stekim · #9 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 10:43 AM

I was not in anyone's head, of course. But I can only assume that the people in the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. who were writing the memos actually did believe it. Likewise, since nothing was done, I can also assume that those higher up the chain did indeed believe it was a crackpot theory as you suggest. Oops.

Sadistic-Savior · #10 (**permalink**) 02-13-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

I was not in anyone's head, of course.

Neither was I. But I dont recall any big fears about it before it happened. Do you?

Quote:

But I can only assume that the people in the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. who were writing the memos actually did believe it. Likewise, since nothing was done, I can also assume that those higher up the chain did indeed believe it was a crackpot theory as you suggest. Oops.

Exactly. We should learn from out mistakes. We shouldnt assume that simply because someone hasnt done it yet that they are incapable of doing it. And THAT is the assumption the author was making.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode