Revised October 24, 2005
Dear editor
It is disturbing that four years after the 9/11 attacks, the United States Government has yet to define a political objective for the war on terrorism. Islamist terrorists, in fact, have been at war with America since the US intervention in Lebanon in 1983. Therefore, the United States has been at war with radical Islam for over twenty years, not four. It seems that since the American government has either not declared or has done a poor job communicating what it needs to do to “win,” people cannot know the correct strategy for victory to hold leaders accountable.
People learn in Foreign Policy 101 that wars are fought over political conflicts which are unsolvable (sometimes willfully) through peaceful means. In history, wars not fought for good reasons or fought along illogical lines always end in catastrophes. The obvious reason America fights terrorists is that terrorists have killed American citizens and destroyed American property. The United States also fights terrorism for a less apparent though important cause: terrorist attacks against our allies and friends threaten vital American interests with instability and unpredictable consequences.
Objectives, political and military, guide the policies we use to win. Once political objectives are achieved, the war is won. Most wars do not end in total destruction of the enemy. That is oftentimes irrational, unattainable, and pure fantasy. Successfully winning a political objective is the point at which the reasons for war no longer exist. In the war on terrorism, American military and law enforcement policy is the complete destruction of the terrorist infrastructure: killing or capturing all the terrorist so that none remain willing or able to continue the conflict. Policies and strategies should, however, be means to achieve final goals, not ends.
A policy of complete destruction of terrorists and their support systems is not rational or attainable. The goal of that policy (the only inferred war aim of the Bush Administration) is 100% security. That is impossible. If we kill hundreds of thousands of Islamists, we would have to fight tens of millions. If we kill millions, we would eventually have to confront and subdue by violence a billion Muslims, only a fraction of whom are Islamist radicals or terrorists. The war against terrorism, including the insurgency in Iraq, is already costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Casualties will continue and our enemies will multiply beyond the Islamists. This is “total war” (one without limits or end) in the 21st Century.
With what political goal, establishing a common sense strategy, could America measure success or failure? Total security is delusion. Universal democracy can be code for American imperialism. On the other hand, self-determination–a sovereign form of government voluntarily constructed by the will of the people–is one of the themes of history. Freedom and liberty, for self and country, is perhaps the most common aspiration of all individuals for all times. Independence is a goal in both a personal life and a political system. History has shown one cannot have a fulfilling sense of personal or community responsibility, or peace within and among nations, without the right to make choices free of internal or external coercion. In fostering the development of liberty and the peace of humble and satisfied desires, the impetus, the motive, and the work must come from within a person, a community, and a country. Stability cannot be imposed where the dissent is given justified cause to disrupt a political order. Ownership of a prosperous future creates self-interested actions to protect the whole community.
I have a suggestion for a goal in the war on terror: “Victory is when oppressed minorities have their grievances addressed politically by their chosen forms of government and when such governments are both willing and able to suppress transnational terrorism by themselves within their own borders.” Doing less would not remove causes of terrorism. Doing more may exhaust and harm US interests.
Tim Krenz
Zine Issue #2 Article