Whither the war on terror?

The evidence marshalled behind this masterful analysis of the state of the current "war on terror" is so overwhelming that even the most die-hard supporter of the president is forced to admit that we have lost much momentum and that even our goals have changed. It is no longer a war, but boils down to getting out of Iraq gracefully and hoping for the best while Iran and Syria and others become nuclear powers. I hope the author follows up with his own recommendations and prescriptions for how he would proceed from here, were he in charge.

Read some excerpts from a very long and detailed article:

The War on Terror is over. What started as a bold campaign to “bring justice to our enemies” across the globe has been redefined as, essentially, a counter-insurgency action in Iraq, the express goal of which is to prepare the new Iraqi government to defend itself, “and then our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.” As President Bush himself stated during his June 2005 speech at Fort Bragg:

“Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”

“Stand down.” In military parlance, this means to stop fighting. But while we have made significant progress in disrupting and eliminating terrorist cells worldwide, and the Taliban and Saddam have been deposed, our enemies have not yet been defeated, and they continue to plot our death and destruction. Nevertheless, pressured by domestic opposition and an undersized military, Bush clearly has retreated from the promise he made to the country on September 20, 2001, the night he declared the War on Terror:

“I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.”

[...]In sum, what President Bush promised the country after 9/11 was a global military campaign against Islamic terrorists and the nations that harbored and supported them. It was well-understood that the nations at the top of the hit list, besides Afghanistan, were Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Although President Bush cautioned the country that “[t]his war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion,” and that diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement, and covert operations would play an important role, there was no question in anyone’s mind that “American military power is the most important part.”

[...]In his recent speeches about the war on terror, President Bush has unmistakably backed away from the aggressively martial rhetoric he used after 9/11. He no longer speaks in terms of destroying “every terrorist group of global reach.” Or “pursuing nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” Or “confronting the worst threats before they emerge.” The Bush Doctrine, as originally understood, is a dead letter. All the talk now is about Iraq, and why we should remain in Iraq despite a rising death toll that has eroded public support for the war. Indeed, Bush’s last four major statements on the war – his 2005 State of the Union address, his speech to the troops at Fort Hood in April 2005, his graduation speech at the Naval Academy in May 2005, and his national address from Fort Bragg in June 2005 – were devoted almost exclusively to making the case for remaining in Iraq. While I agree with the President on this issue, the fact remains that this is not the “war on terror” he spoke about after 9/11.

A close reading of the President’s recent speeches reveals that his wartime policy now revolves around three very different ideas. First and foremost is the President’s endorsement of Natan Sharansky’s argument that the only viable long-term solution to Islamic terrorism is to promote the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. This idea was the centerpiece of President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union address:

[...]In other words, President Bush has adopted a variant of the “root causes” theory of terrorism – only in place of the Left’s emphasis on American “imperialism” and Israeli “aggression,” Bush has substituted “tyranny” and “despair.”

I agree there is something compelling about the Bush-Sharansky view, but I am not persuaded it is grounded in anything more than wishful thinking. After all, the most tyrannical regimes of the last sixty years – the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea – did not spawn international terrorist organizations on par with al Qaeda, the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al. Another problem with the “root causes” theory is that many terrorists come from privileged, prosperous backgrounds, often living in the west and enjoying the exact same freedoms the rest of us enjoy. Yet that did not stop the 9/11 hijackers or the London bombers from doing their evil deeds.

[...]However, this is no longer the message that President Bush is sending. Instead of vowing to “take the battle to the enemy,” he now speaks in terms of “supporting democratic movements” and “standing with democratic reformers.” The quiet anger, the steely resolve, the trembling emotion – even the “braggadocio” – are gone. In his 2005 State of the Union speech, President Bush spoke tepidly about “confronting” – not “pursuing” or “destroying” – regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and develop WMDs, which he correctly described as “weapons of mass murder.”

[...]The third major idea behind the President’s new wartime policy is his express commitment to ending the fighting and bringing our troops home. The notion of a “long struggle” against the “radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them” has been replaced with his pledge, repeated in every speech, that “[w]e will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.” (Fort Bragg speech 6/28/05.) Hence, as soon as President Bush (or more likely the next president) decides that the new Iraqi government is capable of defending itself – or the political cost of our remaining in Iraq is too great – American troops will leave.

The parallels to Nixon’s “Vietnamization” strategy are strikingly obvious. President Nixon’s goal during the Vietnam War was to build up the South Vietnamese Army, so that it could fight the war against the communists on its own. Then the United States could have “peace with honor.” Similarly, President Bush’s goal is “to train the Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own.” (Fort Bragg speech 6/28/05.) Then American troops “will return home with the honor they have earned.” (SOTU address 2/2/05; Fort Hood speech 4/12/05; Naval Academy speech 5/27/05.) For tactical and propaganda reasons, President Bush has avoided setting a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq. But the day that the last American chopper will be lifting off from Baghdad International Airport is coming. President Bush sees it, the American Left sees it, and so do the terrorists.

In both word and deed, therefore, the President has transformed the “war on terror,” pitting the United States and its allies against the forces of international Islamic terrorism, into a counter-insurgency action in Iraq, pitting the new Iraqi government against the Baathist-Islamist coalition that wants to destroy it.

[...]The awful truth is that President Bush has reverted to pre-9/11 thinking about how we should be dealing with the terrorist threat. Simply compare his 2002 and 2005 State of the Union addresses. In 2002, President Bush spoke about how

“[t]he men and women of our Armed Forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves – you will not escape the justice of this nation.”

In 2005, he spoke about how

“[w]e’ve created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half-million first responders.”

All worthy efforts, certainly. But not the bold, preemptive military strategy that Bush articulated in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack in American history. The Bush Doctrine, R.I.P.