International Terrorism: Political Football

Terrorism did not begin on September 11, 2001. The political extremists of the world have been using this particular form of protest for centuries. Terror campaigns were noted in many of the revolutionary wars especially the American and Irish but instances can be found all the way back into biblical times. Any time a civil population is targeted for direct violent action terror is involved. Whether that is kidnapping and executing civilians, poisoning a city's supplies or bombing non-military targets, terror is the outcome. The current debate over Muslim extremists taking action against westerners is not even new to the scene, it began against the crusaders almost 800 years ago. Historically no group of people holds the monopoly on terror activity. The Chinese have seen as much as the French or English according to their own histories. To isolate any people as the principle agents of terror is to vilify them and bias the study of international political action.

Although the targeting of Americans has been an issue for over twenty-five years, our leaders, of both parties, have treated it as international crime and not as acts of war. Even President Bush has only declared war on states supporting terrorists and not as acts of war independent of national entities. Whether you agree with the cause of the war in Iraq, the war on terror is hot and deadly. What began in Lebanon continues in the Middle East today.

Iraq is no longer an issue of why we are there but how long our troops will remain. The history of U.S. interventionist policy indicates a long term commitment of troops. If you doubt this you should reference our troop commitments in Korea and the Balkans. Even in areas where no terror activity is noted, such as Japan, American troops tend to have long term stays.

No party has a good record of changing the world through diplomatic action. Most of these actions have failed and the only notable success, the Soviet Union, happened to meet up with internal economic pressures and a change in political power. Diplomacy, which is the action the Democrats urge, has had no effective results with terrorist organizations. Only the destruction of these organizations or the resolution of the underlying causes have led to the end of the attacks. In order to negotiate with any organization there must first be communication. None of the organizations currently opposing our efforts in Iraq are communicating with us or our allies. This does not allow for diplomatic efforts directly.

However the massive military action that is the hallmark of the administration policy is also ineffective against terrorists operating in independent cells. This pattern was perfected during the second World War to defend resistance units from the Nazi's and was taught to all irregular forces world wide. The current understanding of the way to destroy such organizations is to remove financial support and limit their hiding places. The attacks by conventional forces tend to be the equivalent of hunting cockroaches with dynamite. The damages to the infrastructure of the country tend to cause disaffected people to join any group that claims to do a better job. However indigenous people tend to be hard to identify and are familiar with both survival and terrain features that allow for superior combat positioning. As any military person will tell you the worst way to fight is in unfamiliar territory with an unidentifiable enemy. By facing enemies in these conditions without local support, the policy has led directly to the number of casualties. However now that the locals are able to provide more support our chances of succeeding in removing the insurgents are improving.

This leads to the current debate as to whether we can succeed in Iraq. First thing that must be dealt with is an agreement as to what would constitute a success. The administration has stated that democracy and self determination is a goal. Also bantered back and forth is the concept of a stable infrastructure and ability to defend their own borders. Other concepts such as inclusion of all peoples and equality under the law are also thrown into the mix as is gender equality and a stable economy. All of these items take time to achieve and took America over a century to achieve in any measurable quantity. Some of these we are still working on and therefore it is unreasonable to achieve in less than five years over cultural opposition. The basic Islamic culture opposes the concepts of cultural and gender equality and the tribal nature of the nation is even more troubling. When the tribes of Iraq are willing to form a stable relationship in accordance with the constitution that has been adopted, then the reformation of the country into a modern power is not only likely but virtually assured. To achieve this the young country must be protected and nurtured. To this end, our leaders should agree to stand by the government of Iraq and provide support in some form. If we abandon this country it is quite reasonable to assume that this region will remain a center of terrorism and radical actions of all types. The form of support and the actions of other nations in aiding and supporting the young government should be discussed and agreed upon by all participants. Until the debate is done, it is poor form and might be construed as treason to undermine the troops or breach the confidentiality of operations in the area. Our political leaders need to reach a consensus on the goals and methodology for future action. As long as they choose to make the activity a political scoring point and ignoring the realities of the situation, the mess will continue and our troops will continue to die for no real gains.

The truth is that many people believe that this war began as a lie, a vendetta, or a economic power play, but that does not matter at this point. Our people are over there, in danger, and beyond the ability to participate in meaningful debate. We, who are here, must find some way to support their operations and bring some closure to the situation. My personal hope is that the troops can return soon and that the majority of those returning will be in good health, but I also want the job to be done so that it will not be necessary to intervene again. However as a student of military history I realize that my hope is not yet reasonable.