Terrorism: The dilemma of the die-hards

Tag : air tools & instrument
As the country mournfully marked the seventh anniversary of theterrorist attacks of September 11, we must also reflect on thecurrent state of the "war on terror." In the current presidentialcampaign, there is a fundamental difference between the twocandidiates over the central focus: Senator John McCain continuesto call Iraq the "central front" in the war on terror, whileSenator Obama has declared that the "real war on terror" is inAfghanistan, and he has even indicated he will attack bin Laden orhis associates, without the permission of Pakistan if necessary.

Yet, both of these approaches fall completely short. The waragainst the terrorists, which should replace the term "war onterror," is a multi-faceted conflict with many fronts: ideological,financial, legal, and yes, military, and each front needs to begiven equal attention. So far, the United States has focused thefight almost entirely on the military front, and as the RANDcorporation has said in its recent report , "the US strategy of [military force as the primary instrument]was not successful in undermining al Qa'ida's capabilities." Infact, according to RAND, only 7 percent of terrorist groups haveended by military force.

In fact, it is quite clear from the past 6 years that a solemilitary approach to counterterrorism is an abysmal failure. Thewar in Iraq - the alleged "central front of the war on terror" -has not made the country safer. In fact, according to an Americanintelligence official who was quoted by the New York Times in 2006, the Iraq war "has made the overallterrorism problem worse." That official was relaying the findingsof the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate.

Indeed, the Iraq war was a disastrous diversion from the waragainst the people who actually attacked us on September 11, 2001:the terrorists of Al Qa'ida. While the United States was boggeddown in the subsequent Iraqi insurgency that started afterPresident Bush declared "mission accomplished," Al Qa'ida regroupedand entrenched itself in the mountainous region between Afghanistanand Pakistan. In addition, they have linked up with the resurgentTaliban and have created havoc in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Itis imperative that our focus returns to Afghanistan, where itshould have been all along.

Yet, what should be done about the fighters that are entrenched inthe NWFP and South Waziristan? History has shown that no one -neither Alexander the Great, nor the British, nor the Soviets - hasbeen able to conquer the "lawless" region between Afghanistan andPakistan. The Pakistani military has not had any success, either,suffering enormous losses in recent fighting with the militants.So, does this mean abandoning the military option altogether? No.

We should not be looking to occupy the NWFP and Waziristanmilitarily; our goal should be to flush out the terrorists fromthat area and deny them a safe haven there. This will not onlyprotect the United States, but will also bring increased stabilityto both Pakistan and Afghanistan, which have bore the brunt of theattacks from the Taliban and Al Qa'ida. Yet, how?

Targeted military strikes seem to be an enticing option. No costlyinvasion of foreign lands is necessary, and we can take outmilitants as actionable intelligence on their whereabouts surfaces.In fact, according to recent news reports , President George W. Bush has authorized such military raids, evenif it is inside Pakistani territory, and one such raid has already been conducted on September 4. Yet, as recent eventshave borne out, this strategy can be frought with danger.

The Pakistani government has fiercely condemned the September 4raid and all such military activities on Pakistani soil. PakistaniAmbassador to the US Hussain Haqqani told Reuters, "In ourbilateral discussions, no such idea has been mooted and willcertainly not be accepted by Pakistan." The Pakistani government,already widely considered to be weak, is concerned about theinternal repercussions of allowing foreign troops fighting on theirsoil, even if it is against terrorists who have shown no hesitancyto kill Pakistani civilians. In fact, the Pakistani Army hasrecently said that their troops have orders to open fire if foreignforces enter Pakistan, which reportedly has already happened.

Now, on one level, we should really not be concerned with theinternal politics of Pakistani society when it comes to defendingour country against terrorists who, if given the opportunity, wouldmassacre as many innocent Americans they can. At the same time,however, such military strikes can prove to be counterproductive.Case in point: the American airstrike on August 22 in Afghanistan.The US military has claimed that 30-35 militants were killed, andonly 5-7 civilian casualties resulted. New evidence has emerged, however, disputing that claim, and it may be thatmore than 90 civilians - the majority women and children - werekilled by the Special Operations mission backed by American airsupport.

Every time innocent civilians are killed by US military operations,it can strengthen, not weaken, the Taliban and Al Qa'ida, who canuse such incidents are recruitment propaganda. The district chiefof Shindand, Lal Muhammad Umarzai said about the incident, "This is not fair to kill 90 people for oneMullah Sadiq [the apparent target of the raid]. If they continuelike this, they will lose the people's confidence in the governmentand the coalition forces." And substituting Afghan or Pakistaniforces for American ones, as the RAND corportation has suggested , is likely not the answer either, because they will likely be seenas "tools" of the Americans.

Herein is the major dilemma. If it seems that the military option,so far, is not achieving the objective of defeating Al Qa'ida, whatare we to do against the small number of "die hard" militants whowill never be convinced that their version of "jihad" is satanic innature? They cannot be negotiated with, and it seems that militaryconfrontation must be the only option to defeat them. That militaryaction has to be coupled with proper and precise intelligence.Indeed, precise intelligence work should be the backbone of theeffort to defeat the "fight-to the-death" militants.

Presumably, it can be argued that we are using intelligence in ourfight against the terrorists. But, as the run up to the Iraq warhas shown, intelligence can be manipulated, misused, or evenfabricated, as Ron Suskind's new book suggests . In addition, intelligence assets upon which we rely can beterribly inaccurate. In fact, referring to the Aug 22 air strike inAfghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has vowed to arrest the Afghan whom he claims misled US forces who conductedthe raid. No, these fighter groups must be infiltrated from withinand destroyed, and this means using real, living, breathing humanbeings who can do so.

Yet, it will not be easy to find and recruit intelligence assetswho would be willing to infiltrate terrorist cells and destroy themfrom within. Taking on such a role involves an enormous amount ofpersonal risk, because it is likely that - if revealed that theyare indeed spies - they will be tortured and killed ascollaborators. Furthermore, these intelligence assets, ifsuccessful in their mission, will likely not be safe returning tothe communities from which they came. Thus, they must given supportand perhaps even placed in a sort of "witness protection program."They must never be betrayed by being later prosecuted for providing"material support for terrorism" if they were doing so at ourbidding.

Of course, this has to be in concert with other efforts, such aseconomic development, honest governance, and a full blown"spiritual offensive" against the terrorists, such as the recentDeoband Declaration. That way, the pool of potential recruits, aswell as possible tacit support of the local population, cancontinue to dwindle to nothing. Yet, this will not stop the"die-hards," and so their cancer must be infiltrated from withinand killed. A tough fight, but one that must be waged.