Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek has a thoughtful post on “Tierney and Pape on the ‘War’ on Terror.” (Don provides links to several important articles on the “War on Terror.”) Don is an economist and thinks “on the margin.” That’s smart. I also worry, however, whether some decisions are now behind us, whether there is at this point anything that would induce al Qaeda to stop their attacks on us. If not, then it seems that their leaders, at least, just have to be tracked down and killed. The rub, of course, is that the tracking down will likely affect others adversely (even a relatively “clean” special forces squad will cause harm to innocents; al Qaeda members take hostages, deliberately site themselves among innocents, deliberately seek to maximize collateral damage, etc., etc.) who might thereby be induced to join the al Qaeda cause. On balance, what’s the best policy? Well, it seems likely to be a matter of balancing. (What seems more clear than ever is that the decision to go to war with Iraq was a colossal mistake. Since that decision was made and cannot be undone, what is now the best path forward?)
Whatever direction is taken, surely the “War on Terror” has to be shown to be absurd. How can one wage war on a tactic? One can wage war on some group of terrorists, but not on a tactic.
The especially prescient thing about Tierney and Pape’s findings is the idea that US policy created the terrorist threat that we now face. Once a theory now a documented phenomenon, the idea that terrorism is a brutal and horrible response to already unsavory policy decisions is something we can’t ignore. Of course the problem is that while we are paying attention, the people who create policy aren’t.
The key to dealing with these Al-Qaeda bastards is the civilian population of the countries where the terrorists are based.
A thought experiment:
Imagine that 9-11 had been perpetrated by Aum Shin Rikyo, the creepy death cult of engineers in Japan. No USG military action would have been needed or useful. Everybody in Japan would have been out to get these guys, including the general population, the Yakuza, the police, everybody. The heads of those responsible would have been air-mailed to NYC. The costs to US and Japanese taxpayes would have been basically zero.
A lot of ink has been spilled over “why the terrorists hate us.” IMHO, this is the wrong question. The correct question is, “What is stopping the neighbors of the terrorists from ratting the terrorists out?” Once the general population of a country has the means and motive to dispose of the local assholes, the terrorists should be toast.
I often like to evaluate middle eastern policies in terms of how they affect the Falafel Cart Guy, literally the Man on the Street. I believe that the Falafel Guy is our friend by default — if we can help him stay out of trouble, he will help us rat out the terrorists. But if we screw over the Falafel Guy, he’ll likely be unwilling or unable to do much to stop scumbags.
The highest priority must be put on not shafting the Falafel Guy or his family. That means no economic sanctions that will ruin his business, no poorly targeted bombing that kills his sister-in-law, no stripping him of weapons needed to defend his cart from bandits, no support for local dictators that will oppress him, no sending him to Abu Ghraib by “accident”, etc.
On the positive side, eliminating trade barriers is probably the fastest way to help the Falafel Guy out. Second is assuring that the Falafel Guy has easy access to good information.
TJ – Great comments!
What Pape and Boudreaux miss is their assumption of cause and effect relationship between Iraq and terrorism. I think it is very worthwhile to understand the cause (both of support for the terrorists and what is driving their embrace of the tactics).
It seems a far more plausible explanation that globalization and the flow of our *ideas* is what is setting these people off (remember bin laden trying to purify Saudia Arabia of us?) just as giving the people hope causes rejection of those tactics. Thomas PM Barnett goes into far more depth on this idea.
TJ,
I definitely agree with getting the average fellow in the street on our side. Nothing else is going to win the ‘war on terror’ other than depriving terrorists of their popular support.
That said, it’s not trade barriers that are the issue for Arabs. It’s U.S. foreign policy. You want to pull the political rug out from under the terrorists? End American support for Israel. It’s the single most powerful way to curb anti-Americanism in the Middle East. At the very least, lean on Israel to end its occupation of the 1967 territories. In the 1950s, Washington was beloved by Arabs for its stand against British and French imperialism in Suez. It can be again, if Americans want it to be so.
– Adam
Stuart Berman: bin Laden’s goal is to purify Saudi Arabia of US troops. He may wish for Saudis to reject liberal ideas as well, but that’s not why he and his followers engage in terrorism against the US and its allies. Conflating the two is a big mistake.
Tom Palmer: You’re doubtless aware of many other government programs that use the problems they created to justify their continuance, as they continue to make the same problems worse and create new ones. The terror war is the same. End it now–and pursue and alternative, see http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2005/07/09/withdrawing-invading/ .
I thought that American troops were pulled out of Saudi. This piece http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/saudi-arabia.htm says that 4,500 were pulled out in mid 2003, leaving about 500. Are the 500 still there? If the US pulled them out, would bin Laden stop his attacks? (I kind of doubt that, but maybe it’s still worth a try!)
Fine. Oaky-dokey. We will rename it: “War on Islamists and their Nation-State Allies.”
Fine? Happy? No problems now?
Do you think if we had named World War 2 the “War on Coventional Armies, Airforces and Navies” the German and Japanese threat wouldnt’ have existed?
Would the name change make the whole of WW2 absurd?
Who cares what the name is?
I think that calling WW2, the War on the Dive Bombers, would have probably been pretty much aburd. Or maybe the war on Blitzkreig? Or the War on Sneak attacks?
I think that a war against Islamists and their Nation State allies, would be more accurate.
And then we could debate whether it is desirable to fight a war against all Islamists, or rather just the particular ones who declared war against the U.S. and, more importantly, developed the strategy of attacking the “far enemy” first.
Then, we could actually ask which nation states are allied with the Islamists (all of them, or the ones we want to go to war against.)
My position would favor going to war against Al Quaeda and the states allied with it (which was Pakistan and Taliban-occupied Afghanistan, but after Pakistan switched sides, it was just Taliban-occupied Afghanistan.)
Various Islamist groups should be left alone–particularly sending a message that going for the “attack the U.S. first” strategy results in major problems. Most Islamist groups have focused on local issues. For example, the Algerian Islamists want an Islamic state in Algeria. Hamas wants an Islam state in all of Palestine. Hezbollah wants Israel out of the bit of what they think is Lebenon and the rest of the world thinks is Syria. Some of the people and groups that came to be Hezbollah, wanted the U.S. out of Lebanon, and we left.
Then, I would point out that Iraq wasn’t allied with any Islamist group. Neither is Syria. Iran is closely tied with some Shia Islamist groups–especially Hezbollah, etc.
Personally, I think the purpose of the name “War on Terror” is that various groups that have used terror and nation states that have supported various groups that have used terror, but who haven’t used terror against U.S. citizens in the U.S. ever and certainly not recently, can be targeted under that broad schema.
Someone uses terror, anywhere in the world, and America, World police will be on the job, punishing the malifactors. That is the only way to prevent terror from being used against Americans. Anyone so immoral to use terror against anyone must be stopped cold.
I don’t buy into that theory. It seems a bit grandiose. Punishing thoese particular terrorists who crossed an important line–that will be hard, and will do better in providing realistic incentives. Stick to your “close enemies” if you know what is good for you.
Mr. Woolsey – That sir, is and has been the debate. But it has sadly been obscured by conspiracy theory, idiotic hippie anti-war nonsense and balderdash misdirection about how the WoT is just “a war on a tactic, which is impossible.”
Was it a “tactic” or people who blew other people in London the other day? Everyone knows it was people. Though some people chose to be dishonest about it with their misdirections.
Finally:
“Then, I would point out that Iraq wasn’t allied with any Islamist group.”
See the recent debate between Ron Regan Vs. Christopher Hitchens. You are being dishonest if you pretend such a connection didn’t exist. (Though the degree of such a connection is debateable).
“See the recent debate between Ron Regan Vs. Christopher Hitchens. You are being dishonest if you pretend such a connection didn’t exist. (Though the degree of such a connection is debateable).”
I wasn’t aware that such a debate occured.
I have heard of Christopher Hitchens. I don’t
know who Ron Regan is. I know I don’t have a
high opion of Christopher Hitchens. Who was
claiming that Iraq’s Baathist regime was an
ally of the Islamists? Why should I consider this “Ron Regan” fellow or Christopher Hitchens
competent to marshal evidence against that position? (The other of the one promoting it?)
Until I hear something more credible, I will go with the 911 commission findings.
“Until I hear something more credible, I will go with the 911 commission findings.”
Very well…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
Please reply regarding the content. I am not interested in “evil neocons” and the usual ad hominems.
PS: Here is the link on Hitchens, I couldn’t find it earlier.
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000816
“Terror” is a tactic. The terrorists in London used it on people. Is it, therefore, the same fight to fight those people and to fight the terrorists in Sri Lanka (the Tamil Tigers) who engage in suicide bombing? Or to take on the Shining Path in Peru, or dozens of other terrorist groups around the world that have nothing in common other than the use of terror? I think that Tom Palmer was pointing out how referring to a war on terror doesn’t tell you who the enemy is. And, as others have pointed out, you wouldn’t know when you’d won. Would you also have to wipe out the Tamil Tigers?
A war on AL QAEDA makes sense; a war on “terror” makes as much sense as a war on guns.
“I also worry, however, whether some decisions are now behind us, whether there is at this point anything that would induce al Qaeda to stop their attacks on us. If not, then it seems that their leaders, at least, just have to be tracked down and killed.”
“Since that decision was made and cannot be undone, what is now the best path forward?”
I agree that some disastrous mistakes have been made. It is also important to note that they are compounded by the combination of US foreign intervention and Federal and state restrictions on private defense. We keep swatting at hornets’ nests while continuing to remove our protective clothing.
So what is the best path forward? First complete disengagement from the middle east on all levels (troops on the ground, Foreign aid). Second, treat all regimes in the region on a de facto rather than a de jure basis. Third, lift all federal restrictions on private defense (gun laws, etc). In other words, respect the 2nd amendment. This action will further guarantee safety from terrorist actions than any other tool in the federal arsenal. Allow airlines and all others to provide for their protection of property, etc. Worried about mass transit issues, state and city governments should put them on the auction block for privatization.
The final action would be to declare war on Al Qaeda. A congressional declaration or even letter of marquee will only be effective if we give full respect to the nations of the middle east as well as full respect to the laws of this land (2nd amendment). The war should be fought honorably. Merely, hunting people down and killing them is not an effective nor honorable way to fight. If a suspected individual Al Qaeda member surrenders, honor it. If Osama Bin Laden himself wishes to surrender honor it. Bring them to a fair trial. Collateral damage is not an option as it only creates more terrorists. Any collateral damage of persons or property should be compensated, in terms defined before the war action, by the personal accounts of the president, his cabinet, and those in Congress who voted yes to the war action. Likewise privateers (contractors) are liable for any collateral damage under the predefined terms. This gives a financial incentive to minimize and possibly eliminate the recklessness we continually see with federal action.
Only by acting in a more civilized manner than the terrorists, will we truly win this “war” and effectively secure the nation.
So, we have a debate between a radio talk show host and a opinion writer and that means something?
Algerian society defeated the Islamists? How about the Islamists won the election and the Algerian army stamped them out.
Right up front, anti-Israel terrorism is confused with anti-U.S. terrorism.
The information in the Weekly Standard looked more interesting. Perhaps it will turn out to be true that Sadaam Hussein was working with Al Quaeda.
Of course, the Weekly Standard has published “proof” about an Iraq-Al Quaeda connection before. It turned out to be Feith’s cherry picked information that all the other experts in the government rejected.
Perhaps this is different. We will see.
Since I am hardly in a position to verify all
of the alledged facts myself, I really can’t do
anything else but consider the source. And
the source is a publication that has a delusional agenda.
Mr. Woolsey: It’s too bad you keep sinking to ad hominem. But you are better than most in this debate.
Casey Khan: That is a great solution. Unfortunatly you are putting forward the fallacy that an less-than-ideal solution is automatically wrong. The world doesn’t work in ideals. A full retreat (which you advocate) will only increase Islamists terror in the West (as well as abandon millions in the ME to tryanny. Are you being too nationalistic? Does the freedom of other natiopnalites not matter to you?)
Let me be charitable and say that the “WaT” is in fact a war against radical islamicist fundamentalists/al qaeda. If so, then fine – although I don’t see why we couldn’t have approached all of this as the British are doing with the London bombings, as essentially a very large criminal conspiracy that needs to be persistently tracked down and cut off. The war metaphor invites all kinds of nastiness, like Gitmo.
But Iraq had, of course, nothing to do with 9-11, while there was no doubt some kind of exchange between terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime, many of the terrorists bases were in regions of Iraq outside of his control. Also, Saddam Hussein was an evil regime, but it didn’t have much in common with the al Qaeda brand of terrorism, other than a hatred of America. And a hatred of America is not sufficient reason to go to war.
Hitchens was hilarious when he was attacking Clinton, HAR HAR, but the man is not a serious thinker. He’s a witty propagandist – in the best sense of that word.
Bill Woolsey: Personally, I think the purpose of the name “War on Terror” is that various groups that have used terror and nation states that have supported various groups that have used terror, but who haven’t used terror against U.S. citizens in the U.S. ever and certainly not recently, can be targeted under that broad schema.
I agree with this assessment, but I’d also add that the rhetoric of a “War on ____” resonates well with Americans who constantly hear various social causes described as “wars.” There’s a domestic political agenda behind the name in addition to a foreign one.
Z: A war on AL QAEDA makes sense; a war on “terror” makes as much sense as a war on guns.
Historian Bevin Alexander made this point long ago in his book How Wars Are Won. I’m inclined to agree (because the name DOES make more sense), except there’s historical precedent for declaring war against a particular activity. The 1856 Declaration of Paris united the West in a war on global piracy. There aren’t many pirates left today. In fact, one simultaneous strategy that I think has merit is defining terrorists as pirates under international law. See Douglas Burgess’s excellent article “The Dread Pirate Bin Laden.” (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp)
Nonintervention in the Middle East is the correct plan. The only hitch I see is that Israel could collapse without US aid, but it is probably in little danger of an actual conventional attack, considering Israel’s large nuclear arsenal and the likelihood that the US would intervene, considering the power of AIPAC. (Then again, the scenario outlined in The Masada Plan isn’t altogether unlikely…just not with this president)
Were we to withdraw all our troops from and cut all out connections with, other than trade, from the Middle East, it stands to reason that most of the hate, anger, and resentment directed at the United States would shift to the governments of the region that keep the people repressed and poor.
Tom, I agree with your conviction that we must find a “balance.” We know that the primary motivation of attacks against us is our interference and meddling in the Middle East. But we also know that the War in Iraq has deteriorated to such an extent, and we’ve painted ourselves into the corner so nicely, that we now HAVE to win. Why? After all, there was no real reason to go in before. But we are there now. And were we to pull out right this moment, the country WOULD descend into civil war. A battle would rage over whether the Sunnis or Shia ruled Iraq. The Kurds would likely get pulled in. Iran would almost certainly intervene. In short, we cannot leave because we cannot afford to leave a maelstrom of instability in the middle of the Gulf, because we are still far too dependent on cheap Middle Eastern oil.
So the balance seems to be this: we stay until two things happen. First, the Iraqi military must become strong enough, well-trained enough, and unit-cohesive enough to stand on its own and protect the country, its people, and its people’s rights itself. This will take time. The longest part of this is probably the unit-cohesion element.
The second thing that must happen is composed of two parts. A constitution must be written and adopted, and a new round of elections must occur. This will establish political credibility for the new Iraqi government, and send the message throughout the Middle East that democratic principles can be applied successfully.
Admittedly, it is unreasonable to expect the Iraqis to go through the equivalent of the Enlightenment in a few short years. The changing of the Middle East Istopia, to borrow a term from Philip Allott, will likely take decades, if not centuries. And we don’t need to be there for that. But we can help stabilize the country before we leave. And leaving includes pulling up our fourteen permanent bases there.
I support U.S. disengagement from the Middle East.
However, when I hear libertarian ideologues promise that a libertarian foreign policy would solve the problem, I am skeptical.
For example, would Al Quaeda agree that Americans buying oil from Saudi Arabia, and so enriching the Saudi state, be O.K.? Might we not see terror attacks against the U.S. until we stop importing Middle Eastern oil? That’s not to say that the Caliphate might not sell it to us later, but now? While we are buying from the apostate regime which is using it to buy weapons to suppress the righteous jihadists?
Similarly, suppose American arms companies were to sell weapons to regimes that were suppressing an Islamic insurgency. Is that just free trade? Or would the U.S. be subject to terror attacks until we prohibited arms sales by U.S. firms?
And could Americans give money to Israel? The Jewish community in the U.S. has traditionally given contributions to Israel. Presumably, if the taxpayer quit, they would continue and might even expand their giving. And, of course, there are the Christian Zionists too. Would Al Quaeda accept that? Or would they demand that the U.S. governent it off?
Or would you be willing to tolerate Al Quaeda attacks aimed at pro-Zionist groups in the U.S. You know, a car bomb against the local church of God? Or the local temple? (Read Rothbard. That is part of the plan, the U.S. won’t be the enemy with strict nonintervention, just some of us.)
I think it might be possible that the U.S. government could develop a policy that prohibited U.S. invervention in the Middle East to a degree that we would be far removed from the concerns of any Islamic terror group. But such a policy would not be libertarian.
Like I said, I think disengagement would help. It would make it harder to recruit more Islamists to the strategy of attacking the “far enemy.”
I certainly don’t believe the “they hate us for our freedom” business. But I am not at all sure that the sort of neutrality in the Middle East I could support would be acceptable to all the Islamists.
The Economics of Terrorism
Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek is normally an excellent economist, but he makes a fundamental economic error when thinking about terrorism. I suspect he made this error because when thinking about terrorism, he forgot to take economics — that is, the sc…
What would be my vision of a civil war? Much like what you described: not much different than now, although probably expanded due to the increased boldness of the insurgents likely to follow a US withdrawal. But enough of a disturbance to increase the probability of another strongman taking over.
Iraq and Iran fought a major war for 8 years. Why would a civil war between the elected government and a Sunni based insurgency cause more disruption to the oil markets?
Well, here’s my speculation: the insurgency has already shown its willingness to sabotage oil production. And oil markets are already running with an understood “terror premium.” Why should this trend end?
Only if you buy into the fantasy of the new Middle Eastern man who loves liberalism and Israel, can you believe that if we just stay there long enough, it will become a liberal democracy.
I can dream. But I don’t expect it to be realized for centuries.
I’m utterly dismayed when Brtian Radnitzky applaudes Pape!
Focusing on “holy explosions” is obviously to make a strawman of Islamist “martyrdom operations.” Many Jihadists use guns or knives, as did the Egyptian LAX attacker a couple years back.
Furthermore, fitting Islamist imperial struggles in Russia, India, China, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand – not to mention the vast region of sub-Saharan Africa, all places without US involvement, makes the hope of “peace through isolationism” simply absurd!
Brain needs to crack open the recent “Understanding Jihad” by David Cook. We do not advance the cause of liberty by deceiving ourselves about our enemies motives. As former CIA profiler and GWU psychiatrist Jerrold Post says, terrorists have a range of motives. Unfortunately with Islam, it’s a shifting, slippery set of rationales that escapes Papes naive reductionism.