September 11, 2001 was a turning point in U.S. national security strategy.  One could say that on this day the U.S. entered the fourth world war ‘against terrorists, tyrants and rogue states.’ Since that fateful day, the people of the United States have been debating three alternative national security strategies.¹   

Lawrence J. Korb 
 

Overview

The people are now divided into three groups depending on their choices of alternative strategies.  Conservatives support the strategy known as ‘deterrence and preemption’. Moderates support the strategy called ‘deterrence and containment’. On the other hand, liberals advocate a strategy known as ‘a cooperative world order approach’.² 

In brief, the first choice calls for leveraging American dominance with preventive military action.  The second choice calls for creating stability by using American military superiority for deterrence and containment.  Finally, the third choice calls for a rule-based international system backed by American power that is used in genuine concert with U.S. friends and allies.³  

The above three options are clearly enunciated by Lawrence J. Korb of the council on foreign relations (U.S.A.) in a book published in 2003.  The book is entitled A New National Security Strategy in the Age of Terrorists, Tyrants and Weapons of Mass Destruction. 

This chapter analyzes the three options as explained in the said book. The author is Project Director of the Council for Foreign Relations. The resume is important by way of providing a framework for the understanding of the current US policy on terrorism.   

Option I: US Dominance and Preventive Action  

The most serious threats to American security come from a combination of terrorism, rogue states and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  The temptation to use these weapons against the United States is very high for several reasons, including the fact that clearly identifying and punishing the attackers is inherently difficult.  According to Korb, “America is not going to be able to talk others out of developing these weapons, nor is it likely to be able to build an international coalition to help it get rid of these weapons.”  Common sense dictates that the government won’t stand idly and wait to act until catastrophic attacks are visited upon the American people.⁴  

The United States has the unrivaled military and economic capacity to repel these challenges to its security, but it must display the will to do so.  To be able to carry out a strategy of preventive action, taking preemptive military action when necessary, the country must be a hegemonic power. This being the case, the United States can protect its security and that of the world in the long run only by maintaining its military dominance.  

The ultimate goal of American foreign policy will be to use this power, alone if necessary, to extend free-market democracy around the world.  This, it believes, is necessary because most of the terrorists come from countries that suffer from political repression, economic underdevelopment and broad lack of respect for the rule of law.⁵  

The vice president, the secretary and deputy secretary of defense, state department… people in both parties, and the neo-conservative intellectual community all support these policies.  They believe this proactive policy would enable the United States to use this moment of American primacy to make the world a safer and better place for it and its allies.

Most of the above groups also believe that America should not be tied down by international agreements or institutions. They add, “at a time when the danger is great, we cannot accept the fate of Gulliver in the land of the Lilliputians.”  Moreover, if Americans content themselves with defeating terrorists and tyrants, but do little to replace their radical vision of society with something better, they will have squandered their unipolar moment of power and influence.  America must make the world safe for democracy if it intends to prevent another September 11.  

All the above three components -- the use of military force, alone and preemptively if need be; military dominance, allowing no other country to challenge American military preeminence; and democracy promotion… work seamlessly together. According to Korb,  “as in the case of building a three legged stool, one cannot construct a sustainable policy based on only one or two of these components and expect the preventive-action strategy to hold together.”⁶  

Option II: A More Stable World with US

Power for Deterrence and Containment 

Terrorism, rogue states and WMD represent the most serious threat to US security and the American way of life, but America cannot deal with these threats effectively in all places and every time through the unilateral use of military force.  It must use American power together with international support.  America will not have the capacity to twin military victory with stable peace or to fully remove threats without on going international cooperation. To gain international support will require the United States to take the views of others into account and make serious efforts to contain and deter the threats before employing military force.  

Even if a rogue state ruled by a dictator acquires WMD, its weapons will cause little tangible harm because any attempt to use them would bring national obliteration.  When dictators have undertaken acts of aggression, it has generally been a direct result of the United States failure to communicate its intentions credibly to contain the threats. Besides, as Korb explains, “on such occasions, deterrence did not fail us, it was just poorly implemented.”⁷  

By making preemption a doctrine, the United States will encourage other states to legitimize their own aggression under the guise of defensive measures.  This will make the world less stable. Finally, by attempting to maintain military superiority and actively working to spread democracy and free market throughout the world America will most likely over extend itself and take the trappings of an empire.  It will then very likely find itself in a situation very similar to the one which occurred in Vietnam.  The country should rather narrowly focus on the task of eradicating terrorist networks of global reach.  

Many members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House on International Affairs Committee, officials at the state department and the ‘old guards’ of the foreign policy establishment, as well as most military leaders and many leading defense intellectuals support this position.⁸  

Option III: A Cooperative World Order  

While in the short-term threats to U.S. Security and the American way of life come from terrorists, rogue states and WMD, the U.S. is also threatened by the longer-term effects of global poverty, growing lawlessness and the increasing isolation of the United States from like-minded states. According to Korb and many other analysts of U.S. foreign policy, the United States must, therefore, change its emphasis from military force to diplomatic and economic cooperation.  

Korb also argues, “working multilaterally with our allies and partners through international institutions does not mean to suggest that others have a negative attitude over the American pursuit of its security interests.” But when it is possible, we should listen to our allies and partners, so that when the time comes from collective action, we will not have alienated our friends or even inadvertently created new enemies.⁹ 

The option of ‘cooperative world order’ advocates the use of U.S. power to strengthen the known institutions designed to prevent the threat of WMD. This strategy strives to adapt security arrangements such as NATO to the new environment of threat; to integrate Russia and China into the international system that supports U.S. values; and to make the United States play a leading role in organizations that deal with economic, social, and health problems that create a climate in which radicalism can flourish. 

Although the use of force is certainly justified in self-defense, it should be employed only when the threat is imminent and leaves no viable alternative. Striking first should be a tool of last resort not a first option.  

U.S. policy also emphasizes the above position. It is also supported by internationalists in congress and the state department [i.e. persons with conscience] and by most members of the international legal and arms-control communities, as well as by America’s European allies and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, not to mention countries of the developing world. Besides, for its supporters at home, this brand of multilateralism is not sheer altruism, but the best way to serve the United States enlightened self-interest.10  

Conclusion  

So far, we have seen the three policy options which the U.S. is debating as national security strategies in the age of ‘terrorists, tyrants and rogue states.’  The first two options are favored by the military or conservative-cum-power-oriented members of the society. The two policy options are premised on the strategy of using fire to put out fire.  But, as the Good Book says those who draw the sword will perish by the sword.  Hence, the first two options which are called ‘strategies of “dominance and preemption’ and ‘deterrence and containment’ will make the world a dangerous place to live in.¹¹  

The strategies of ‘dominance and preemption’ are based on maintaining American military might at the highest level possible so that no other state that could challenge American military preeminence emerges.  Further, it advocates attacking terrorist sponsoring states preemptively.  Lastly, it commits   the United States to promote free market democracy in traditional and conservative countries like Saudi Arabia.  This is believed to make the world safer for democracy but could also make it more convenient for western economic exploitation.  

Besides, according to some analysts, a strategy of ‘dominance and preemption’ could encourage other states to be more aggressive and militaristic than they are today. The U.S. emphasis on ‘dominance and preemption’ could also lead to world conflagration.

The second option of ‘deterrence and containment’ is a carry over from the cold war.  It is a strategy of threatening with massive retaliation and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to would be aggressors and terrorist sponsoring states.  Although this strategy is more rational than the first, it still contains serious harm.  In effect, the West is saying to Third World states mired in poverty, “what is mine is mine, but what is yours is negotiable.”¹²   

One should also take note of two facts, namely that terrorism is rooted in the quest for a more just and equitable economic and political system.  It is a quest for global wealth redistribution. The second fact is that terrorists know that they will be called naive if they ask for global wealth redistribution in an avaricious nationalist and racist world. Hence, they instead call for religious freedom and cultural equality.  The west sees the latter two demands as more rational than the first one.  

Moreover, the west true to Machiavelli’s teachings, believes that the wealth of subjects or citizens should not be touched.  Everything else is negotiable.  Therefore, embarrassed Third World terrorists refrain from talking about wealth sharing and economic exploitation.  They know the west will not make a concession on this front.  Hence, they euphemistically talk about religion and culture.  

This shows that if the United States is serious about drying the swamp that breeds terrorists it must embrace the third option.  It is called a ‘cooperative world order’ strategy.  To be sure, it is a timid cautious strategy.  It calls for strengthening international institutions and agreements such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to reduce the spread of WMD. It also suggests acting in concert with allies and the international community in general to combat terrorism.  Even more importantly, it suggests practical steps of reducing the prevalence of poverty, ignorance, diseases and other problems associated with them.¹³  

The U.S. should go further than this if it wants to be perceived as a big brother instead of as a big bully.  It must play a leading role in establishing a global economic development regime which aims at the redistribution of global wealth.  This should begin with debt cancellation for the Third World. Second, the rich countries should set aside a third of the defense budget of the OECD countries for Third World economic development. Third, they should step up development assistance and raise the flow of resources to the Third World on more concessional terms.  The ultimate aim is to give poor people of the world stakes in the global political and economic system.  

The above proposals might seem outlandish and impractical.  Many readers might say, “we must accept the world as it is not as it ought to be.”  But, the world is what it is because of what scholars have taught political leaders. It is true that human beings are generally not altruistic enough, but they are also receptive to well argued ideas.  

In this connection, one should underline that hard times call for bold measures, critical problems call for untraditional solutions and chronic diseases call for untested remedies. The United States recognizes as does the rest of the world that the new brand of terrorism requires a novel type of warfare.  Unfortunately, most of today’s rich countries apply the age-old strategy, “if you want to maintain peace, prepare for war.”¹⁴  

The above strategy is a major contributor to current terrorism. Could it also be a factor for its cure?  Can adding more wormwood make bitter water sweet? It is like saying to one’s enemy, “if I suspect you of ill-will, I will kill you first before you kill me-and go to life imprisonment.” The rational thing to do instead is to make peace and engage in reconciliation.¹⁵

The Effect of the War in Iraq 

Since 9/11, there has not been a major terrorist attack on US soil.  How such a salubrious situation developed has been debated by many scholars.  But the answer may be that US intelligence establishments have performed amazing feats by way of foreclosing any opportunities for terrorists to attack the United States. 

In addition to what is mentioned in the above citation, the war in Afghanistan must have deprived al Qaeda a base from which to launch an attack on the United States.  About a dozen high level al Qaeda officials have been captured and about 300 low level al Qaeda operatives are incarcerated. 

But now the question that concerns many people is how does the war in Iraq affect global terrorism? We will examine this below.  

The Cost of the Iraq War 

Many scholars now believe that al Qaeda has benefited from the Iraq war.  The greatest windfall for Bin Laden’s forces comes in the realm of propaganda. This is not a small advantage for a movement that views establishing itself as the undisputed champion of Islam as its primary goal.  By occupying Iraq, the United States has given al Qaeda a major opportunity to drive home its argument that the “leader of world infidelity” seeks to destroy Islam and subjugate its believers.  It now seems highly likely that Iraq itself has become a central theater for Islamists seeking to attack the United States.¹⁶ 

By invading Iraq, the United States has squandered some of the good will it enjoyed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.  In Iraq itself, insecure conditions and porous borders have apparently permitted the infiltration of al Qaeda, its associates and other foreign groups.  For American policy makers, managing the occupation may be a distraction from the war on terrorism.  It will certainly be a drain on resources, since the reconstruction of Iraq will be both lengthy and costly.¹⁷ 

The tensions of occupied Iraq may make it harder to promote a positive image as well as to sustain both the international cooperation and the internal focus that are essential to defeating al Qaeda.  In the future, a successful reconstruction of Iraq would benefit the Iraqi people and enhance regional stability.  It might well change the political dynamics of the Middle East.  However, this otherwise positive out come could sharpen the desperation of the radical minorities who practice terrorism.¹⁸

The Current State of Affairs 

Hope for quick withdrawal from a stable and democratic Iraq was quickly dashed.  In essence, Iraq is becoming a new “swamp” that breeds terrorists.  As a result of these troubles, the U.S. occupation may last a decade or more and require tens of thousands of US troops to bring about peace and promote democratization.¹⁹ 

The failure to uncover robust weapons of mass destruction programs has also hurt U.S. credibility, making it far more difficult for it to justify another war.  Even staunch allies such as Britain have blanched in the face of US rhetoric against Syria and Iran. The international support for the United States that grew after September 11 is dissipating itself.²⁰ 

The long-term prospects look bleak. Besides, the United States is losing its campaign for the hearts and minds of the Arab world.  Poll after poll suggests that opinion about the United States in the Middle East range from suspicion to open hostilities.  Al Qaeda is under siege, but its ideas are spreading in many parts of the world.²¹ 

What is to be done? 

Daniel Benjamin has made the following policy proposals which might improve the success of the United States in its war against terrorism.  

1.Democratization  

Only democracies can hope to contain some of the dissent and resentment that has been emerging in Muslim countries.  

2. Improvement of Regional Educational Systems   

The wide spread decay of state schools in the Middle East has given many parents no option but to send their children to religious schools that inculcate radical ideologies in their minds, but not prepare the youth for the modern economy.  

3. Economic Liberalization  

The countries of the Muslim world face enormous demographic and economic stress.  The primary hope for ameliorating some of the hardship is economic growth, which has been stunted by the failure of economic reform.

4. Curbing Incitement  

Too many of the Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes have sought to ignore criticism and project it on external enemies like Israel, the United States and the west in general.  To end the cultivation of radicalism, Muslim leaders must be shown that this practice is not tenable.²²  

Conclusion 

The war on terrorism is currently directed at the symptom of the problem in rogue states and individual terrorists.  But, the root causes of terrorism are poverty, oppression, hopelessness and misery of the vast proportion of humanity.  It is the affluence of the West at the expense of the impoverished world that fuels discontent and terrorism in the world.  

Hence, the war in Iraq has been widely questioned. In fact, many argue that the war should instead have been declared on poverty, diseases, ignorance and oppression.  Even now, it is not too late to do this. Nevertheless, it would require foresight, altruism, dedication for the common good and a realistic appraisal of the situation of the world. But, are the rich countries of the world including the U.S. ready for this? History will show us whether this will happen! 

FOOTNOTES 

¹Lawrence J. Korb, A New National Security Strategy in the Age of Terrorists, Tyrants and Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2003.

^2-4Ibid.

^5-7Ibid.

^8-11Ibid.

^12-15Ibid.

¹⁶Daniel Benjamin, Global Terrorism after the Iraq war, Two Years after 9/11, United States Institute of Peace, www.usip.org.

^17-18Martha Crenshaw, The United States as Target of Terrorism, United States Institute of Peace, www.usip.org.

^19-20Daniel Benjamin, Phase Three in the War on Terror,  USIP, www.usip.org.

^21-22Ibid. 

Home / UP