SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
January 26, 2010
Exclusive: Counterterrorism Must Not Be a Diversion from More Dangerous Threats
.jpg)
The al Qaeda/Taliban terrorist attacks on multiple targets in Kabul January 18th gave added meaning to President Barack Obama’s pledge on January 5th to “defeat their networks once and for all.” The President elevated his rhetoric after the failed “underwear bomber” airliner plot on Christmas day in Detroit.
Terrorism is not, however, the greatest threat facing America. Iran poses a more strategic threat to U.S. interests. Iran provides state support for terrorist groups that are larger and more ambitious than al Qaeda (Hamas and Hezbollah), schemes to destabilize Iraq, and is developing nuclear weapons to back its power projection capabilities. It also has the explicit backing of China, America’s rising peer competitor in global politics.
The day after Obama made his pledge about fighting al Qaeda, Beijing blocked new UN sanctions on Iran. Tehran had failed to respond by year’s end to President Obama’s generous offer of incentives if it abandoned its nuclear weapons program. Chinese UN envoy Zhang Yaqui said, “This is not the right time or right moment for sanctions because the diplomatic efforts are still going on.” Negotiations have been going on since 2003 without result. A new approach would be in order, but the Obama administration has been far less active on the Iran front than on the al Qaeda front. There has been a substantial increase in troop deployments to Afghanistan and drone attacks into Pakistan. Operations are now being extended to Yemen.
Nothing comparable has been done in regard to Iran despite signs that the Tehran regime is becoming more vulnerable. Some liberal commentators have praised the downgrading of concern about Tehran. Peter Beinart argued in a long Time magazine essay (December 9th) that President Obama was “shrinking the war on terrorism” by concentrating all of his attention on al Qaeda and letting other issues lapse, in particular concern over Iranian-backed terrorism. “In Obama's narrower struggle against al Qaeda…a cold war with Tehran makes little sense,” thinks Beinart, who published the convoluted book The Good Fight in 2006 claiming “liberals – and only liberals – can win the war on terror and make American great again.” Part of Beinart’s Time argument was that since Iran only threatens Israel, it’s not an American problem. He also paid scant attention to Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile programs. But perhaps his most distressing claim was that the U.S. no longer has the strength to confront Iran.
Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, recently told CNN that it would be “literally irresponsible” not to make contingency plans against Iran. Though his comment was low-key, it got a response from China. In standard orchestrated style, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu's was asked about Gen. Petraeus’ remark at his January 12th press conference. He responded, “China always believes that the Iranian nuclear issue should be peacefully resolved through diplomatic negotiation so as to safeguard the effectiveness of the international non-proliferation regime as well as peace and stability in the Middle East. China hopes that relevant parties step up diplomatic efforts, maintain and advance dialogue in a bid to vigorously seek for a comprehensive, long-term and proper settlement of the issue.” Thus, Beijing endorsed President Obama’s “engagement” approach as it serves as an alternative to taking action that could be harmful to the Tehran regime. Suffice it to say, China’s idea of what constituted a “proper settlement” is far different from U.S. objectives.
Gen. Petraeus spoke at the Center for Strategic and International Studies January 21st at an invitation-only event that I was privileged to attend. He talked of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen, but did not mention Iran.
But if it is irresponsible not to make contingency plans about Iran, is it any less irresponsible to restructure the American military in a way that ignores threats from large regional states like Iran and rising peer competitors like China? This is what is happening as a result of a myopic concentration on terrorist groups.
When marking passage of the 2010 defense authorization bill in October, President Obama said, “We're eliminating tens of billions of dollars in waste we don't need. So no longer will we be spending nearly $2 billion to buy more F-22 fighter jets….This bill also terminates troubled and massively over budget programs such as the Future Combat Systems, the Airborne Lasers....At the same time, we accelerated or increased weapons programs needed to confront real and growing threats -- the Joint Strike Fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship, and more helicopters and reconnaissance support for our troops at the front.” In other words, the Obama administration is downsizing U.S. military capabilities away from the high-end weapons programs that would be needed to meet major conventional or strategic threats, masking cuts with heightened rhetoric about al Qaeda.
Defense Secretary Gates kept his post in the new administration because he has long argued that “any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to...irregular campaigns.” Yet a focus on only the low end of the combat spectrum puts at risk much larger national security interests. Terrorists must be fought, but terrorists can only kill. They cannot conquer like the forces a nation-state can deploy. This is true even for mass casualty attacks like 9/11. About as many Americans died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 as at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. But al Qaeda did not have an army and fleet to follow up its surprise attack the way Imperial Japan did. Al Qaeda hijacked commercial airliners; it did not deploy its own air force. It must always be remembered that terrorism is the weapon of the weak.
At CSIS, Gen. Petraeus emphasized the new priority being given to the training of Afghan security forces, which are to be increased by 100,000 men (nearly a 50 percent expansion of existing military troop levels). Eight years into the war, this initiative is long overdue. Counterinsurgency campaigns are very manpower intensive, and U.S. Army and Marine units remain over extended. The military part of “clear and hold” is only part of nation building, which cannot by its very nature be accomplished by foreign troops, no matter how benign their intent. Only soldiers, police and administrators drawn from the local population possess the necessary knowledge of the people, language, and culture to be effective in creating the national loyalty needed for victory. A primary requirement of security operations is to establish the legitimacy of the allied government, just as the aim of insurgents and terrorists is to undermine that legitimacy. A government that is dependent on American troops for its survival will not be seen as strong enough to rule.
Intervention by robust U.S. forces may be a necessity to save a friendly government from collapse, overthrow a rogue regime, or stabilize a perilous situation. But it cannot be a long-term solution in any part of the world where conflict is endemic. In such areas, victory cannot be defined as the cessation of violence, but the lessening of violence to a level that does not endanger the survival of the allied government or vital American interests. U.S. military planning should not be predicated on tying down the bulk of American units indefinitely to perform missions that are properly the function of local and allied forces.
The U.S. military must be prepared to fight major wars against other nation-states whose capabilities are on the rise. And the American defense industrial base must be maintained by a steady program of weapons procurement for all the armed services. This is particularly true for aircraft and warships which cannot be produced on short order to meet a sudden crisis. If Washington is backing away from Iran out of weakness, then Tehran’s backers in Beijing will surely take notice as Chinese ambitions grow. So will others. The world will then become a far more dangerous place than al Qaeda could ever imagine.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
