COMMENT: A nation not at war —Harlan Ullman - Thursday, December 02, 2010

Source : www.dailytimes.com

Barack Obama portrays al Qaeda as the prime enemy. But his strategy in Afghanistan is based on defeating the Taliban, and in Iraq on imposing some measure of order on chaos wrought by Iraq’s domestic politics. Is either conflict ‘war’ or simply widespread violence that is mischaracterised or misapplied as a surrogate for war?

The US is many things, great and good. But, despite last week’s teapot sized tempest over full body scanners and intrusive pat downs by the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) to neuter terrorist airline bombing threats and zealous rhetoric to the contrary, the US is not a nation at war! Parts of the nation, however, are engaged in what to them is surely the real thing.

The Pentagon is certainly at war with at least 150,000 US service personnel fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and that region. The intelligence, State Department and law enforcement and other agencies are selectively at war as are civilians serving in non-governmental organisations or contractors in these most dangerous parts of the world. Journalists are still embedded with troops in the field although, with the drawdown in Iraq, less frequently.

Thus far, no sightings of victory gardens or war bond drives have been reported unless you count the actions of the Federal Reserve in quantitative easing as the modern equivalent of lending money on behalf of the government in times of crisis. And the only references to rationing arose in the context of healthcare and fear mongering tactics by the more extreme opponents of the bill who falsely and pre-meditatively asserted that that is what would happen if the bill became law.

War does not require a formal declaration passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. Korea and Vietnam demonstrated as such. But wars usually require a real and well-defined enemy. Unfortunately, misnamed wars on drugs, crime, poverty, AIDS and especially terror have diluted the impact of the word — a malaise we suffer from today.

So who is it we are fighting in this mal-defined war? Do we understand our enemy that all competent commentators since Sun Tzu have agreed is priority one? Are we winning or losing, and how will we know?

George W Bush saw the enemy as Islamist extremism, quickly recast in more politically acceptable terms of ‘violent extremism’, and an axis of evil of anti-democracy dictatorships. The first was to be defeated by the war on terror, the second by the freedom agenda.

Barack Obama portrays al Qaeda as the prime enemy. But his strategy in Afghanistan is based on defeating the Taliban, and in Iraq on imposing some measure of order on chaos wrought by Iraq’s domestic politics. Is either conflict ‘war’ or simply widespread violence that is mischaracterised or misapplied as a surrogate for war?

As the starting point, assume the enemy is al Qaeda. After all these years, does the US and its public really possess adequate understanding of what al Qaeda is and is not or are we embarked on our own form of Anglo-Saxon-Judaic jihad to avenge September 11? Do we really comprehend what motivates and energises al Qaeda and, if so, have we identified effective antidotes and counter measures beyond so-called kinetic options including drone attacks, target killings and snatches? Most significantly, we have missed or denied ourselves use of the single most effective tool at our disposal — winning the war of ideas.

This failure was recorded by the Pentagon’s Defence Science Board (DSB) Report of September 2004 to the Secretary of Defence on strategic communications. The then chairman of the DSB noted that the US cannot win the global war on terror without winning the battle of ideas. The report showed why we were losing that fight and how to turn the tide.

Six years later, the authors would be saddened but not surprised by our continuing failure to contest the battle of ideas with al Qaeda. Why have we not pulverised Osama bin Laden’s self-awarded legitimacy and the right to issue fatwas or religious dictates as he lacks the education and certification required by Islam for that privilege? Why have large numbers of clerics of all faiths, but essentially Islamic, not come forward to condemn bin Laden with the vigour Osama has used to attack the West? And, why have we not encouraged a Muslim awakening of many potential Martin Luther’s to combat bin Laden’s perversion of Islam?

An intellectually rigorous and politically sophisticated approach to winning this battle of ideas has never been needed more. This is not clever PR although clever PR is important. That we have given mere lip service and little more to engaging on this crucial battlefield in the war of ideas is perhaps the clearest evidence that we are not a nation at war. Asked another way, are we serious in taking on this adversary?

As we draw down in Iraq and turn security responsibilities over to Afghans, instead of doing a review of Afghanistan strategy this month, the White House would be best advised to re-read the DSB report, determine why we are still losing that fight and take remedial action. Otherwise, we are not a state at war.

The writer is Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business, and Senior Advisor at Washington DC’s Atlantic Council