Although the volley is still in full flight, given what looks like a breather in the struggle for Lebanon, it might be time to ask how the war on terror is going.
We must start with President Bush’s critics: is there, indeed, a war on terrorism and is Bush fighting it properly?
Most agree international terrorism is a threat to American security, heralded had it not been earlier, by the 9/11 attacks. But as the paramount guarantor of world peace and stability — something most of the President’s critics would vouchsafe — there is no agreement on Bush’s effectiveness, or, indeed, whether there is a cohesive enemy out there. Supporters point to no repeat of 9/11 and hint attempted attacks, undisclosable for security reasons, have been thwarted whether from one part or another of Islamic fanaticism.
Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin has accused Bush of using the anti-terror issue as cover for narrow political partisanship. Some would say Levin, himself, repudiates another Michigan Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg’s 1948 rule:“politics stops at the water’s edge”. Vandenberg, a Republican “isolationist”, before World War II, bitterly opposed “securing America by aiding the Allies” as one of his opponents, Kansas editor William Allen White put it, He reversed his stubborn positions to endorse President Harry S. Truman’s “interventionism” by taking on Communism, first in Greece and Turkey..
Today, while Levin does list Iraq – if not terrorism – on his website issues, he has parted company with the Administration on two counts: he wants a timetable for American Iraq withdrawal, and he contradicts his earlier pronouncements endorsing Bush’s preemptive Iraq war as part of a worldwide campaign. Whether Sadam Hussein was, in fact, part and parcel of worldwide terrorism may have to be left to historians. Certainly there is circumstantial evidence – presence and communications with jihadists – to indicate as much. But Democrats, and Conservative Republican luminaries such as William Buckley and George Will [however convoluted], argue Iraq is a gigantic digression. Bush counters Iraq is quintessential, implicitly arguing “Iraq” is the proof of how long and bitter the fight will be.
Whether Bush has convinced the country is not clear; certainly there is no wartime atmosphere as those of us who lived through World War II knew it. That is despite loss daily of lives of young Americans. Perhaps that is simply explained by the hurly-burly of 300 million people in the most advance consumerist society the world has ever known. The President’s critics say he has made too many mistakes, that he has not properly used his “bully pulpit” to exhort civilians to match the generally agreed exceptional valor of American fighting men.
If, indeed, there is a war against terrorism, it is different than the U.S. has ever fought. Even American counterguerilla campaigns of yesteryear do not lend much verisimilitude. Judging success or failure in present guerrilla, insurgent, or asymmetrical warfare is difficult if not impossible. There are no battle lines, there is no map of territorial conquest or loss, casualty figures are inconclusive, leadership abilities remain even more nebulous than in classical warfare. And Islamicist fanaticism has no center – no Vatican, almost no hierarchy – although, ironically, creating a Caliphate is an aim of some jihadsts . Most important, sympathies of the great mass of bystanders and, often, victims, are conflicted, given to violent shifts of the souk
Evaluating where we are as we approach the fifth anniversary of the terrorists’ most successful blow must be discussed in generalizations as inconclusive as the contest itself:
Ideology: The West has failed to energize Islam’s great silent majority. In reality, the jihadists continue to recruit more young psychotic adherents ready to choose death to life in a bitter resolution having little to do with issues as seen by most of those around them. The critics say this is because “root causes” have not been addressed – generally code for the Israel-Arab conflict. But for anyone acquainted with the Arab/Moslem world, there is a vast multiplicity of issues from Casablanca to Zamboanga, saturated in poverty and ignorance for centuries.
Propaganda: There has been a total failure to mobilize the kind of Cold War resources important in bringing on the implosion in the Soviet Union. In no small part, unlike the post-World War II European democratic left, “moderate’ Islamic leaders have remained supine in the face of the contest for power inside the ummah. If anything, jihadists and their friends have used technology – including worldwide communications – far better than Washington and its allies.
Geographically: Hot spots continue, for the most part, alarmingly endangered. Kashmir is no more near settlement and violence continues on a daily basis. Southern Thailand’s Islamic rebellion is becoming increasingly “internationalized”. The Straits of Malacca “piracy” is increasing. Indonesian government ambivalence toward internal jihadism continues. Jihadist recruiters are reaching out successfully to Indian Moslem professionals. Pakistan’s Musharraf, however critical an ally, remains precariously balanced..Iranian internal opposition remains divided in the face the mullahs’ further radicalization and their drive for nukes and regional power [Lebanon]. Somalia remains a hot bed of jihadism. In Russia Jihadism is spreading to other Moslem populations from Chechnya. Sudan’s Darfur continues to suffer catastrophic Islamicist deprivation against Moslems.
This elliptical picture is not pretty, nor one lending toward optimism.
Sol W. Sanders, (solsanders@cox.net),
is an Asian specialist with more than 25 years in the region, and a former correspondent
for Business Week, U.S. News & World Report and United Press International.
He writes weekly for World Tribune.com and East-Asia-Intel.com.
