Define the Global War on Terror

[Jim Vernon]

Let's start with clarity. We've had Global War on Terror for nearly seven years, yet we have not officially declared war on any country or person. So, let's hear your definition, even if you don't believe we should be at war.

[Bryan Walker]

I think that when the whole thing started it was a noble cause. What would have been the reaction of the American people, if Bush had not done anything after the attacks of 9/11? The American people would have asked for his head on a silver platter. He had to attack someone & I don't think that the American people really cared who it was, they just wanted revenge, rightfully so. I was one that hooted & hollered when he stood on the pile of rubble at ground zero and said that the terrorists were going to hear from us soon. War is a messy thing, there is no such thing as a clean war, which Americans expect war to be. We expect wars to be fought with technology with no people directly involved, but the reality of the situation is that it is boots on the ground that win wars. I do now believe that the war has gone on longer than it should & that our military should turn the country's back over to their new governements and bring our soldiers home. I don't think that it can be an immediate withdrawal. We need to remove our troops gradually to insure a clean transition to the other governments. I trust that the ultimate goal is to turn over these countries to their people & let them decide their own fate.

[Jim Vernon]

Thanks, Bryan. Let's keep this discussion moving forward. I have a couple of questions and comments to respond:

1. Can we agree* on some distinctions between the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War?

I agree* that the American people demanded a response to 9/11, and Afghanistan was that response. I am not condemning or approving the Iraq War by comparison, but I am asking whether we can agree* that our rationale for Iraq was not the same as our rationale for Afghanistan.

I'm also asking whether we could not have made the rationale for both much more explicit. I'm not trying to force an agreement* that our rationale for Iraq (or Afghanistan) was right or justified. But, the rationale for Afghanistan was an explicit response to acts of war that originated within Afghani territory, with the apparent blessing of the government at that time (the Taliban regime). The rationale for Iraq was more complicated, but surely we were not responding to a direct attack.

* Maybe I should say somewhere more prominently that my agreement is not what matters. It's not why I wrote the book or why I started this community. Whether you and I agree (we will on some things, we won't on others) matters less than whether we can bring more clarity to the choices we seem to have about these wars. We will all have opinions -- often passionate ones -- about things like whether we should keep our troops in Iraq or withdraw them. Wouldn't we all be better off if we could add some clear purpose to both of those options? Keep our troops in ... and do what -- exactly -- with them? Use them how? etc. Withdraw our troops ... and (again) do what -- exactly -- with our diplomacy and other policies in the aftermath? Respond to future Iranian aggression how? Support the Kurds and the (minority) Sunni Iraqis how? etc. We have lots of questions to answer, regardless of which "simple" choice we make.

Even figuring out the questions is difficult. Version 1.0 has a section about that -- I hope it will broaden this discussion.

2. War is, indeed, messy. Do we really know who we're fighting? Regarding "boots on the ground", is that the best way to fight these wars? I'm not arguing for a techno-centric approach, but we are learning the limits of what boots on the ground can accomplish and the downside of occupation. Maybe we can figure out military strategies that would look far different from our years-long occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. "People" is hard to define in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Pashtus and Uzbekis seem to view themselves as different "people", just as Arabs and Persians. Bring in religion and tribe, and you'll realize quickly how little we Americans understand "the ground" on which we've put so many boots. The war in Georgia brings into play Abkhazians and Ossetians. The Kurds span territory from Syria to Iran, not just Iraq. The differences make my head spin, but I think we ought to try understanding all those differences. In that regard, it's tough to know what governments will represent them best, which makes a transition pretty complicated. That's why I don't think a "simple" choice between staying or withdrawing makes much sense. Neither choice is a strategy, without a lot better definition of what we're trying to accomplish.

4. With regard to letting the "people" decide their own fate, I offer an alternative directly related to that goal, and I've also said a few things about abdicating our responsibility. I'll be interested to hear your voice on those issues.

This is going to take a lot of work, but I think the result will be worth the effort.

Thanks,
Jim

[Scott Johnstone]

The War on Terror is really a "War" on Terrorism.

While the attacks on Americans did not start on 9/11/2001, it was the last straw I believe. The "war" was supposed to be a preemptive attack on terrorism. Instead of waiting for terrorists to attack the U.S. and go after individuals who violated U.S. law, we decided to take a proactive approach and seek out anyone, anywhere who is in violation of international law or deemed guilty of committing "terrorist acts".

In 1979, when Iran took 52 hostages, it was an act of terrorism. It was unthinkable at the time that we would attack a country over such an act for fear of what the escalation would result in. Would the Russians defend a sovereign nation with nukes? Who knew what would really happen?

Later in 1993 when the first attempt was made on the World Trade Center, 6 people were killed by a car bomb, but while it was bad and woke up some, it did not wake up the nation to take on terrorism. More people we killed in McDonalds or Postal Office shootings.

The attack in 2001 was bigger and more horrific that anything that had happened before. So, we the people, decided it was okay for us to go after Al-Qaeda and anyone associated with similar acts of terrorism.

So, we followed Al-Qaeda to Afghanistan. I believe it led into Pakistan as well, but moving military into a country with nukes is a little more difficult than one with barely any military to speak of.

Terrorism is a very subjective thing. In the end, it is really more of a political tool, but one we as a nation have gladly gone along with. And, since we run the nation, I think we need to own our own ambiguity on the matter. We have never asked for a clear definition of what this "Terror" we fight is and I think that is what is getting us into trouble. We did not clearly define what is was, so it give our leaders the liberty to interpret in however we need to fit the situation we currently in.

A case could easily be made that Saddam and his sons were terrorists in the class view of the term. Therefore, we are justified in hunting them down and lkilling them. Unfortunately, the same can be said for many more leaders than just the Hussein family.

[Jim Vernon]

Thanks for your points of view, kjcimo and Scott. I think we're starting to see that -- as a nation -- we have a real need to come up with a better definition of the Global War on Terror. We have lots of possible explanations -- that's what I see from the few responses, so far. But we don't have a common definition, something that enables all of us to understand:

• who we're fighting
• why we're fighting them
• what we hope to win by fighting, and how we'll know when we've won it

I don't think we have just two sides to this debate, either. We have lots of people who strongly support pursuing our enemies in Afghanistan but do not think we should be fighting in Iraq. (We have some who feel the opposite, but not many.) We have lots of people who do not think we should be fighting either war. We have lots of people who think we should be fighting both wars. We have people who think we have not gone far enough in pursuit of other enemies.

What we don't have are clear definitions. So, regardless of what "side" you might take in the debate, it's awfully hard to resolve anything. I think this is very bad for our country. No matter who you support in the upcoming elections, and no matter who wins, I think we'd all be better off if we insisted on more clarity.

[Becky]

Hola: First, I have a huge personal problem in that I have little time and huge interest in this whole subject matter. I also have marginal depth in many areas of this topic, which will become evident I'm sure. Second, thank you Jim for all the work that has gone into this thus far. My extremely cursory review of the ISG report and your comments makes it abundantly clear that you have a far greater grasp on the myriad issues than the collective membership of the ISG. Way to go, Jim!

Ok, I'm going to delve into one of the areas where we should seek greater clarity. As I understand it, these are the key areas of concern addressed by the ISG;
A. Assessment of the Current Situation in Iraq
1. Security
2. Politics
3. Economics
4. International Support
5. Conclusions

No mention of religion. Was this specifically excluded by the ISG? Jim conveys a far more informed perspective on the fundamentalist Islamic view than anything I can find mentioned in the official report. On p. 174 Jim asks what I believe to be one of the key essential questions:

· How can we promote our values in an environment where our enemies seem very successful in promoting religious theocracy and suppression of any beliefs and practices contrary to their fundamentalist Islamic dictates. ?

I must note that our enemies don't just 'seem' successful, they 'are' successful in promoting religious theocracy and suppression of any beliefs and practices contrary to their fundamentalist Islamic dictates. This isn't a perception it is a reality that must be dealt with realistically. Our enemies in this arena are diverse...some are on the far extreme and intensely hate anything other than their own beliefs and others are very open to change. I believe it is this small but very powerful core group of fundamentalists that is a key source of the whole problem. Our values and fundamentalist Islam values coexist about as well as oil and vinegar. Jim goes on to observe:

"Regardless of how one judges the morality of our policies, the fact remains that we
have not prevented the establishment and entrenchment of a fundamentalist Islamic regime hostile to almost all our interests."

Very true. And impossible to do, IMHO. Fundamentalist beliefs of any sort are by nature and definition virtually impossible to shift. They are established and entrenched, that's why they are fundamentalist. I truly believe a deepened understanding of this core element of the situation would begin to help the US comprehend how to engage effectively in it. We will struggle forever trying to change something we don't understand...have you ever tried to convince a liberal why conservatism is better or vice versa? It's a challenge until you truly "get" where the other person is coming from. And even then you may not be able to shift their thinking...you just might understand them better. I think we as a nation need to "get" it as it pertains to Islamic fundamentalism and that we won't "succeed" (whatever that means) until we really get under the covers of this issue.

A great read on the topic of war in general is "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. It is grounded on the Taoist tradition, but it's principles are universal. I wish I had more time...alas, life calls. Thanks for this platform:-).

[Jim Vernon]

Thanks for so many thoughtful and insightful comments, Becky. I'd like to amplify a few of your comments, because they relate very closely to why I wrote Fix This War! and what I hope to accomplish.

First, thanks for your compliment that I have "a far greater grasp on the myriad issues than the membership of the ISG". Alas, I wish that were true. I hope that it's clear that my criticism of the ISG is based almost entirely on the contradictory and weak logic of the report. The commission had four working groups of experts in many areas, all of whom I'm sure have a much better grasp of the issues (or at least those in their specific areas of expertise) than I do. A truly thorough criticism would require more research than I could personally conduct in years. That is why I included a brief section devoted to the many questions that I think we need to address before we can craft a sensible and credible policy.

Second, as you note, I agree that the religious dimension needs much greater analysis than the ISG gave it. I should also note, though, that the ISG did discuss religion in its assessment. However, your comment is not far off base -- the discussion was extremely shallow. The ISG observed that Shiite and Sunni factions have some intense differences, but it did not delve at all into the details of those differences. In fact, the ISG discussed the religious dimension as essentially a political issue.

I confess that I cannot keep even the basic distinctions straight in my own mind. I think the Shiite faith rests on the primacy of the direct descendents of the Prophet Mohammed, whereas the Sunni faith rests on the primacy of the religious authorities who surrounded Mohammed and their successors in authority. But, I may have that backwards, and I still might not have captured the exact distinction. That's just one aspect, and certainly 1400 years of religious differences have involved many other complicated issues. The best that I could manage for Version 1 of FTW! was to lay out some questions.

Third, regarding your comments on fundamentalism, I just want to mention the documentary, Obsession. I received a DVD with an hour-long excerpt from the full documentary film, and it provides some very interesting discussions about what it calls Radical Islam (essentially the fundamentalism that you mention). Even that excerpt does not cover the Sunni/Shiite rift, but it does have a lot of commentary on the influence of the "core group of fundamentalists". You might have received a DVD with your Sunday newspaper a few weeks ago. I have tried to get permission to load the excerpts as a video on this site, but I have been unsuccessful in that attempt. (What a surprise: my unsolicited inquiries of this nature generally get no response. Do you suppose the rest of the world already knows that I'm a crank??)

Lastly, thanks for your book recommendation. I haven't read it, but I have read the Wikipedia entry. I know that's a bit lame. I don't claim that as a substitute, but I often rely on short-cuts at least to get a taste of some subjects. I've read enough to agree that the principles are universal. I think perhaps those principles should form part of the framework for analysis that I tried to create in Version 1. If we ever get to a Version 2, I hope that The Art of War can play a role in that.

Alas, life does call. Don't send it to voice mail.

Love,
Jim

[Coby Dillard]

New to the discussion here, so forgive if I'm rehashing someone else's points...

The War on Terror is a struggle against terrorism and extremism, being fought on multiple fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan are the two you hear most about, though there's also the Philippines and the Horn of Africa).

What makes this difficult from other "wars on..." is that there's clearly defined sides. On the one hand, you have those countries who wish to be tolerant and respectful of others, but not forced into submission by terrorists and extremists (from any side of the political/religious spectrum). On the other hand, you have those who seek to establish dominance through fear, initimidation, and acts of violence.

Since terrorism has, of late, not been a state-sponsored event (that kind of went out in the 1990s), the focus now has shifted to combatting global terror networks. What makes this difficult is that these networks aren't limited by territorial borders; in our electronic landscape, their message can be spread globally and virally. That makes it almost impossible to nail down a single country as a state sponsor of terrorism (Iran and Syria excluded; their terrorism takes on a different bent than the brand advertised as the "enemy" in the GWOT) and declare war on them.