Get PJ Media on your Apple

What if We Actually Had a War on Terror?

Twelve years after 9/11, have we lost track of our objectives?

by
Charlie Martin

Bio

September 11, 2013 - 12:53 pm

Twelve years ago, al-Qaeda forces took control of four commercial airliners and used them to attack American interests and civilian populations, murdering thousands and bringing the attention of the American public to the fact that America was not safe from asymmetric warfare.

Since then?

When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s sometimes hard to recall your original objective was to drain the swamp.

If there is a better example of that proverb’s lesson than the situation in the Middle East, it doesn’t occur to me. The U.S.’s recent meandering led satirist Andy Borowitz of the New Yorker to write:

Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect regime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

In theory, the Borowitz Report is satire, but in fact he gives an excellent illustration of the vital-but-not-urgent, imperative-but-not-time-sensitive, forceful-but-impotent approach the Obama administration has taken for the last five years. It has gotten to the point where I think we’ve forgotten why we’re involved in the Middle East, why that involvement changed in a fundamental way on September 11, 2001, and what we’re really trying to do there.

As such, we would now benefit from revisiting those first principles in an attempt to make sense of recent history, to rediscover our original objective, and to consider how we might approach “draining the swamp.”

The War on Terror

President George W. Bush named the conflict, memorably and effectively, when he declared a “War on Terror.”

Of course — probably no more than 20 minutes later — some pundits made the criticism that you can’t declare war on “terror” because terror is a tactic and not an actor, and not an entity against which we can fight.

This critique is hard to answer, because it is specious.

It was clear from the start that the phrase was intended to mean “war against particular groups who use terror as a tactic of war against the United States and its interests and allies.” But speeches don’t have footnotes, and a three-word phrase is much clearer that a paragraph of discourse. Sometimes, however, a paragraph of explanation is needed, so let’s belatedly consider what we really mean by a “war on terror.”

Der Krieg ist also ein Akt der Gewalt, um den Gegner zur Erfüllung unseres Willens zu zwingen. — Carl von Clausewitz

In the first chapter of the first book of Carl von Clausewitz’s classic On War, he defines war as: “An act of violence to compel the opponent to do our bidding.” The aim of war is to make an opponent do what you want. Of course, it’s almost never stated this bluntly; if it is, it’s often dismissed as “mere Realpolitik,” as opposed to a more idealistic vision of policy, where the aim is to Do Good.

I’m unabashedly in favor of realistic policy; history, it seems, teaches that good intentions based on idealistic fantasies often lead to evil results. However, if the purpose of war is to compel an opponent to do our bidding, it’s helpful to know what our bidding ought to be. To clarify our goals, let’s look at the third word: “terror.” One difficulty in talking about a war on terrorism is that the very definition of “terrorism” is unclear.

There have been literally hundreds of attempts to define the word usefully; not wanting to be left out, let’s attempt our own. In considering war, looking to German language sources for insight is often productive. In this case, we can look back to a word from World War I: schrecklichkeit, literally “horribleness.” During the invasion of Belgium, in the face of civilian resistance, the invading army of von Moltke took brutal action against the Belgians: burning churches, libraries, homes; executing priests, resisters, and sometimes whole villages as an example to others. The stated aim was to inflict such brutal damage that the civilian population would be demoralized at relatively little military cost. I think this is the key to understanding terrorism, and so we will define it:

Terrorism is military action against a civilian population, whether by regular or irregular forces, intended to maximize the demoralizing effect of the action while minimizing the military force required.

The use of terror is generally understood as an unconventional tactic, although hardly an unknown one in conventional warfare, as the example of von Moltke shows. But then ours is an unconventional opponent: rather than a single state or alliance of states, our opponents are factions with some ideological commonalities, composed of small groups and even individuals of like mind but often of diverse intentions. This makes warfare against them much more difficult. Conventional warfare is effective as a rudder to turn the ship of state, but what we’re fighting is a flotilla of dinghies.

One objection to this definition might be that it includes too much: after all, the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were primarily intended not to destroy some military objective, but to break the will of the opponent. By this definition, these are themselves acts of terror. In my view, this criticism is both correct and pointless. Most all tactics of war have both an effect on the military forces and on the morale of the people involved. We choose, in general, to minimize the direct effects on civilians from military strikes, and it’s a point of pride for the American military that we try to minimize collateral damage. But the use of terror as a tactic must been seen in itself, as an attack on morale as well as people and assets. This definition, as offered, has this much to recommend it: it clarifies in the definition the specific, pragmatic military reasons for using terror as a tactic. Terror is used to break the will of an opponent at the least military cost.

It is a historical fact that the United States has never suffered a military defeat on military terms. It follows as a consequence that our opponents necessarily find themselves compelled to make war against us by unconventional means. It is also an unfortunate historical fact that the United States lost the war in Vietnam, arguably lost the war in Korea, and may right now be losing the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan because our various opponents have effectively fought us not through direct military action but by attacking our morale through unconventional means.

We call some of these means “terrorism,” but by using the word — and more so by treating the word as describing a crime rather than a kind of warfare — we protect our tender sensibilities from the realization that our opponents are, in an organized and concerted fashion, using force to bend us to their will. By definition, and by their intention, our opponents are in fact making war on us:

Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen mitteln. — Clausewitz

“War is merely a continuation of policy by other means” is a more commonly seen quotation from von Clausewitz, often mistranslated as “politics” or paraphrased as “diplomacy.” But in English, “politics” is the process through which policy is defined. The policy is the course of action proposed or to be taken. To von Clausewitz, war is a means by which policy is implemented. In other words: war is not a thing in itself; it is a tool through which an opponent is bent to our will, as expressed in our policy. To make war on terror, then, is to use force to achieve a policy end.

So what was our policy? Simply stated, the real problem of 9/11 is that our opponents were using “terrorism” as a tactic of war to bend the United States to their will. They used force, murdering thousands and attacking iconic buildings, to break our morale and to bring the United States to its knees. And our policy was to make sure they stopped doing that.

Who Is Our Opponent?

It could be argued — and has been argued, and will no doubt be argued again — that the unnamed opponent is the religion of Islam itself.

I personally know too many Muslims who are good, kind, gentle people to be comfortable with that; I’ve known too many Christians of whom I couldn’t say the same thing, and know too much history to be comfortable with the idea that Christianity has an objective claim to some inherent moral superiority. Be that as it may, pragmatically if Islam itself is the enemy, then our military objective would have to be the end of Islam as a world religion.

There are more than a billion Muslims in the world. Ending Islam would mean their forcible conversion — in the words of a famous philosopher and flying squirrel: “That trick never works” — or their extermination. Hitler tried — and failed — to exterminate all the Jews. Exterminating Islam would be a genocide thousands of times as great. It is certainly impractical, probably impossible, and in any case unthinkable. Fortunately, it is also unnecessary. Islam is not our opponent: the billion Muslims are not of one mind, and like people everywhere, most Muslims want to live their own lives, having children and grandchildren and dying in their beds at the end of a long and happy life. Our opponent is a fluid and shifting alliance of different groups with, in some sense, a commonality of interests: a religious ideology of strict adherence to the Qur’an, hadith, and Sunna.

The recent example that first captured current America’s attention was the Islamist takeover of Iran by the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. While we tended to see this purely as an attack against the West, a position that Khomeini’s followers certainly tried to encourage, it was in reality primarily a conflict among Muslims, a particular group of religious zealots against a more flexible group led by the shah — the first Iranian ruler to have had a Western education. The Sufi communities, the Alawites, and other Muslim groups have suffered at the hands of Islamist zealots, and of course there is a 1300-year dispute between the Shi’a, the sect to which the Khomeinists belong and that rules Iran, and the Sunni, reified in the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia.

The conflict isn’t just between Islam and Christianity; it’s between conflicting sects of Muslims. This is an important point because our opponent would like this to become a war with all of Islam. Bluntly, if they can make us believe it is a war with all of Islam, it becomes a war of all Islam against us. And whoever leads that war against the West has the best shot at dominating the Muslim world. Bringing the United States into line with the opponent’s will is an important objective, and probably one they see as necessary, but the long-term objective of the various Islamist sects is the unification of all Islam under their respective sect.

Our Objective

We’ve identified the opponent’s objective, but then what of ours? The original formulation of the War on Terror actually stated it clearly: we want our response to be punishing enough that attacks on our civilian population are known to not be a cost-effective means of warfare against the United States, its allies, and interests.

In other words: if you try to kill our people and blow up our stuff, you will be very, very, sorry.

(Part Two of this article will appear soon at PJ Media.)

Charlie Martin writes on science, health, culture and technology for PJ Media. Follow his 13 week diet and exercise experiment on Facebook and at PJ Lifestyle

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I am also not going to salute, regardless of "terrible taunting", something called “A War On Terror” because it is itself indicative of the pathology of the three monkeys of oblivion class. Its squeamishness in naming the enemy is but one sign of an incoherency that hampers any coherent effort. Had Scipio issued a rallying call for the War on Elephants, Hannibal would have marched into Rome in triumph. Had World War II been waged against Guderian’s Blitzkrieg, rather than against Nazism, the Thousand Year Reich would still have well over 900 years to go.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
".....some pundits made the criticism that you can’t declare war on “terror” because terror is a tactic and not an actor, and not an entity against which we can fight.

This critique is hard to answer, because it is specious."

The critique is hard to answer not because it is specious, but because it is precisely correct. A more suitable name would be "War on Islamic Terrorists", that would exactly describe what we are against. Four words vs. three, but sufficiently brief that it should not be too difficult for most people. Footnotes not needed. Not a war on Islam, just Islamic Terrorists, because they are the ones attacking us. Not a war on any other terrorists because they are mostly away in history, or are leaving us alone. If they decide to attack us then we may want a war on them as well. If we had used such clarity from the beginning, we would not have to listen to such stupidity as calling the Ft. Hood massacre "workplace violence".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The so called "war on terror" could have been won 12 years ago if it had been treated like the immigration issue that it actually is.

The fact that they've done nothing towards keeping people from those parts of the world out of the country shows just how disingenuous the "war on terror" is.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (160)
All Comments   (160)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/two-muslim-outrages.php

"Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif mumbled the appropriate apologies:

"Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who left for New York to attend the UN General Assembly, strongly condemned the attack on the church, saying “terrorists have no religion and targeting innocent people is against the teachings of Islam”."

"Really? Based on bitter experience, I would say that the mass murder of random innocents is the essence of the “teachings of Islam.” We have seen such mass murder over and over, more times than we can count. Does Islam have something to offer other than crazed, sadistic violence, committed to perpetuate the crudest forms of ignorance? If so, I haven’t seen it. Whether we talk about Africa (Nairobi), Asia (Peshawar) or any place else, the fruit of Islam appears to be the same.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
“It is also an unfortunate historical fact that the United States lost the war in Vietnam,”

Unarguable? Hardly. The United States won the war. A peace treaty was signed, and all but a corporals guard of American soldiers were withdrawn from South Vietnam. Thereafter, the Regular North Vietnamese Army attacked South Vietnam. Congress under the control of the Democrat Party (a/k/a the Pro-Soviet Party of Traitors) prevented the President and the Military from supplying the air power and the materiel that the US had promised South Vietnam in such event. The resultant debacle is a deep stain on the honor of the United States, but it hardly constitutes a loss.

“arguably lost the war in Korea”

Compare North and South Korea on any set of metrics you wish to specify. The victor is apparent.

“may right now be losing the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan”

Actually, the US won the war in Iraq. The Obama Administration, like its dishonorable Democrat forebears has walked away, but Iraq stands pretty much as we left it.

As regards Afghanistan, you have a better case, but there the problem is that the Administration, and, to be fair, its predecessor, refused to identify and engage the real enemy, which is Pakistan.

“we want our response to be punishing enough that attacks on our civilian population are known to not be a cost-effective means of warfare against the United States, its allies, and interests.”

Which is why we should have nuked Mecca and Medina on September 12, 2001. The principal should be that any attack on the United States proper will result in a retaliatory strike so horrendous that no one will ever think of doing anything like it again. You don’t think that Islam is the enemy and you have swallowed the liberal line on it. But, the folks who attacked the US and the folks who are behind them would have regarded it as a very bad trade, which is why we should have done it.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Quite disappointed in this one, Charlie. The Muslims-are-nice-people explanation to Quranic texts and doctrines is a weak one. Several years ago, after a break of some 25 years, I opened the Quran and began to read. The doctrines are clear and speak of coercing all non-Muslims until world peace is achieved - through Islamic conquest. Islam posits that everyone has always been Muslim, but that those of us who are not have openly rejected what 'we know' to be truth - yet another reason for us to be punished, yet another evidence of our corrupt natures. This is part and parcel of the rationale by which the Tanach and the New Testament are ideologically trashed in Islam. And then, about the life of Muhammad, about the trend in the Quran to become ever more harsh with time (as the book progresses)? That 'only' a few hundred million Muslims may be al Qaeda types, and many of the rest nice people is little comfort, as the moderate Muslims remain silent.

The critique of the phrase 'War on Terror' is not specious, as it is based on the previous points to an extent, and on the refusal to 'name' Islam in any way. Bush shied away from doing so, and Obama consecrated that refusal.

I look forward to a reconsideration on your part.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wouldn't use that definition of terrorism.
There are too many definitions out there that get deliberately twisted around at us by our enemies.

Most definitions of terror out there could apply to an American aerial bombardment- even with no civilian casualties at all- when a US jet swoops low over a Taliban-held village to impress people with its presence, isn't it instilling fear in civilians?

I think the definition needs to be much more precise and clear.

Terrorism: political violence conducted by non-state actors in which the principal targets and/or tactics used are those expressly forbidden by the Laws of War.

Assad's gassing of civilians? Not terror. War crime.
Aum Shinrikyo's use of never gas? or 9-11? or London or Madrid bombings? Terror. Tactics and targets forbidden, actor was non state.
American bombing producing civilian casualties? not terror. Actor is state, targets were accidental, not principal.
French Resistance in 1945? Not terror. Actors were non state, but tactics and targets were lawful.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Charlie is fearful of being called a bigot - raaaacist!!! - or god forbid an islamophobe!!
How did those moderate Nazi's work out Charlie, or moderate Shintoists?
Keep up the lie Charlie - we will never win.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If you can tell me what our objectives were, maybe I can tell you if we've lost sight of them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It could be argued — and has been argued, and will no doubt be argued again — that the unnamed opponent is the religion of Islam itself.

Actually the enemy is the political ideology of islam itself. The problem is that the religion and the political ideology are not exclusive from each other. So a religious practicing muslim will beat his wife, not take infidels as friends, pray 5 times a day, make his daughter cover her face in public and take no more than 4 wives at a time. And a political ideology practicing muslim will do the same things, along with taking slaves, using an imam/sharia court for legal disputes wherein a womans testimony is weighted half as much as a mans, where a son inherits double of what a daughter does, and he can get divorced from one of his wives by saying I divorce you three times and take her kids and kill the unbelievers wherever he finds them.

Islam is the enemy of freedom loving Christian/Judeo/Buddhist/ Hindu/Wiccan/atheist and multi religious societies.

Just because all muslims don't physically participate in the war to bring the entire world under islam, doesn't meant they don't participate.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We get it, Charlie. Your religion prevents you from saying anything bad about Muslims. No problem.

Don't worry, you still have credibility on purely technical issues.


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
@Mark v There is nothing in Buddhism that prevents anyone from saying anything bad about anyone. You're encouraged to be nice.

Given that and the fact I am a Buddhist - Muslims need to stand up and do a better job of criticizing the Islamists and the Imams who sow violence. Until we get a Muslim version of Martin Luther, the whole "Allah Akbar" followed by loud explosions things will not end. Until the West is able to stand up, stop being PC, and push back on the imposition of Sharia in the West - we will suffer more and more.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So, is the Buddhist version of "be nice" what most of us would call, "refusing to face facts"?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Until we get a Muslim version of Martin Luther,"

We hear this silly bit of wishful thinking from time to time but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Martin Luther sought to end the self serving corruption that had infected the upper echelon of The Church" and return to the founding principles such "love your neighbor as yourself", "do unto others as you would have them unto you", you know, that sort of thing.

Islam already has it's Martin Luther. His name is Osama bin Laden. He returned Islam to it's founding principles. Jihad and DEATH to the infidel, just like Mohamed.

What is needed is the end of excuses for the disgusting religion of Islam. Islam needs to be squeezed by every means available until it no longer exists, just like any other evil philosophy such as Nazism or communism.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well said. When it comes to Islam, normally intelligent people speak like morons. If we don't have a Cold War with Muslims they will start a Hot War.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A Muslim version of Martin Luther? Wow, what a dream. You mean someone to lead Muslims back to the true message and example of the founder. You mean someone to lead Muslims back to Mohammed, the Muslim ideal of the perfect man?

Mohammed: warmonger, caravan robber, murderer, rapist, paedophile.

This is who the Muslim Martin Luther will lead them back to! I'm curious, QuantumSam, are you a university educated liberal and a daily reader of the NYT?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
After reading the column and comments , it amazes me that although you try to tell people you are a peace loving man , you admire the Muslims for their obedience to their religion. Your views should be on a leftist site and labelled Propaganda.
Islam is the enemy , not Christians.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All