Bring the Boys Back Home

Five reasons the War on Terrorism will never be won with foreign invasions

By M. Harrison

Osama bin Laden and all al-Qaida leadership that aided in the 9/11 attacks should be vanquished. We can also protect our homeland from the next terrorist attack. But none of this requires America to invade a single foreign nation, and here are the five reasons why.

According to a recent NYPD report, the greatest terrorist threat to United States citizens now comes from our own people - homegrown terrorists. This is not news to anyone who is aware of how different the terrorist threat is from any other enemy we've faced. John Robb, in his excellent book Brave New War, outlines the myriad ways that any dedicated homicide-minded individual can bypass America's woefully inadequate homeland security and exploit technology to wreak havoc on a massive scale:

"We have entered the age of the faceless, agile enemy. From London to Madrid to Nigeria to Russia, stateless terrorist groups have emerged to score blow after blow against us. Driven by cultural fragmentation, schooled in the most sophisticated technologies, and fueled by transnational crime...terrorists have developed the ability to fight nation-states strategically - without weapons of mass destruction. This new method is called systems disruption, a simple way of attacking the critical networks (electricity, oil, gas, water, communications, and transportation) that underpin modern life."

Depraved desires for maniacal violence and the ability to carry them out are not confined to the foreign world or a single country. It's highly unfortunate that such an obvious fact is so dangerously transcended by American neoconservatives. To spend massive resources on an invasion of a single country and render our military incapable of responding to another threat - all while domestic terrorism grows in danger - is a manifestly asinine policy at best and national suicide at worst. Protecting our nation against terrorism - fourth generation warfare - requires developing decentralized resistance and dynamic local law enforcement. There is no "fighting them over there so they don't attack us here". They're already here. It's about protecting us now.

2. Democracy doesn't stop terrorism, policemen do

The President tells us we must invade Iraq because democracy will stop terrorism. But to think that democratic government does anything but express the views of its subjects is a delusion. Even while great democracies help to sideline radical views, they by no means eliminate the occasional expression of sadistic savagery. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were American. The 9/11 hijackers planned their attacks in Germany. Angry inner city youths recently went on a pyromaniacal crusade in France. Britain's 7/7 bombers were Britons. It's uncomfortable, but the free speech and tolerance that democracy offers can even be a boon to terrorists, allowing them to communicate more openly, practice their faith more openly, and freely associate.

By contrast, brutal dictators are usually quite effective at crushing terrorists. Authoritarian governments are remarkably adept at obliterating any perceived threats to their power, and the threat of terrorism is no different. The Middle East is saturated with iron fist regimes that cleverly market their brutal anti-terrorist activities both as necessary for both public safety and for the Will of Allah. Shining examples of this principle are Saudi Arabia, a backward and repressed Islamic society that actively condemns Islamic terrorists as apostate and is a regime regarded as an ally in the War on Terror; and Syria, a nation that unleashed tanks and bulldozers on its own cities in order to root out the Muslim Brotherhood.

Stopping terrorism has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with law enforcement.

3. Invasion doesn't work

While terrorist leaders who aided in 9/11 are a defined and finite enemy, terrorists themselves are not. As the greatest political commentator in American history, the late William F. Buckley, Jr., wrote, "Individual terrorists were only yesterday engaged in ordinary occupations, shocking friends and family when they struck as terrorists." Indeed. One cannot invade Iraq to root out potential terrorists any more than one can invade America to root out potential terrorists. One can only protect against the inevitable strike.

While American special forces should pursue bin Laden and his henchmen with all deliberate speed, traditional nation-state warfare is utterly incapable of fighting terrorism. As Mr. Robb says in Brave New War, "From a security perspective, the most disturbing aspect of 9/11 wasn't the horrible destruction, but that the men who attacked us on that day didn't even factor the opposition of the U.S. military into their planning. Despite tens of trillions of dollars spent on defense over the last decades, this military force proved ineffectual as a deterrent at the point when we needed it most."

Another historical fact counseling against foreign invasion is that no foreign power has ever vanquished a domestic guerrilla rebellion. The most powerful force in the world is a people willing to sacrifice themselves to expel a foreign occupier from their homeland. This helps explain why there was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until America invaded it.

No people should understand the foolishness of foreign occupation more than Americans. Despite living under the freest country in the world in 1776 (Great Britain, providers of natural liberty, the Magna Carta, democratic government and a robust legal system), we still threw off the yoke of foreign power, and rightly so. Our very existence is a testament to the lesson that a people will always fight to expel a foreign presence, no matter how benevolent the imperialist motives.

4. Winning hearts and minds requires living people

Islamofascism is a hideous, benighted, destructive and blasphemous ideology that must be thoroughly denounced by intellectuals around the world. However, reckless American military intervention stands in the way of winning this crucial battle of ideas for several reasons.

First, it diverts world attention from Islamofascist brutality and focuses it on American belligerence. In a world largely of media censorship and ignorant public opinion, it is too easy for Islamofascists to play the victim when American tanks are rolling through their side streets. As we are forced to stoop to their level - fighting amongst civilians, villages and homes - we lose the moral high ground.

Second, American culture is remarkably adept at forging positive opinions of our country through peace and commerce. It was recently reported that as American products finally entered Iraq, locals happily flocked to buy the high quality items, even while they cursed our military occupation. We can make people love America without resorting to force.

Third, moderate Islamic scholars must publicly condemn Islamofascism. But America has recently denied visas (ostensibly for security reasons) to moderate Islamic scholars who happen (for good reason) to vigorously oppose U.S. foreign policy. We must face the fact that many of our allies in the War of Ideas are those who oppose our current prosecution of the War on Terror, and embrace the criticism for pursuit of the greater victory.

5. Yes, they hate our freedom - but they kill us for being over there

One need only consult Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War on the United States to find out why he is trying to kill us. Or, if you want it from an intelligent American instead of a murderous lunatic, ask former senior CIA analyst and head of the agency's bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer. The jihad has nothing to do with our freedoms and has everything to do with our military interventions in the Middle East. Al-Qaida gains financial support, moral justification and willing recruits to kill Americans by arguing that American military presence in the Middle East is interfering with their ability to implement Islamofascism in the Arabian peninsula. News Flash: Islamofascists don't want to rule America; they want to rule Mesopotamia.

Of course, a radical adjustment in American foreign policy will not stop radical Islamofascists from despising the West any more than eight hundred McDonalds haven't stopped the French from hating us. But the point isn't to make them like us; it's to starve the jihad of resources and support. The only way to do that is to stop legitimizing the Islamofascist narrative of an oppressed people suffering under American military occupation.

Recognizing America's foreign policy mistakes is not letting the terrorists win. It is simply an intelligent recognition of reality and our own limitations. We all love this country and desire to remain safe. We do not criticize our nation's foreign policy lightly, nor do we doubt the patriotic sincerity of those who believe otherwise. We only seek to learn from history and ensure that unlike Rome, France, and Great Britain, our glorious empire will not buckle under the weight of ill-advised imperial ventures.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Rick Donaldson, March 10, 2008

Wow... what a big load of "Police State" crap. Look buddy, when a bully punches you in the nose and takes your lunch money because you're "on his turf" you don't stand there and let him, you kick the crap out of him.

Bin Laden and his various terror groups is nothing less, nor more, than a bully.

Americans aren't terrorists.

America ought to be denying EVERYONE a visa for the time being until we close out, and secure our borders... then let people in who want to be here to do good, rather than evil.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by David Knight, March 10, 2008

Greetings Rick Donaldson:

If Americans aren't terrorists, then why did we pass the homegrown terrorism act? Talk to your representative about who they REALLY think "elects" them.
Under the present law, this comment could be intrepreted to be an act of terrorism. Just what does it take to be a good American anyway? Have you investigated the 9/11 truth movement, or has the media got you scared of the crazies?
As a republican for 32 years, I refused to watch Micheal Moores second film, because I objected so much to his first. But I should have been more familiar with what he had to say, in order to refute it. I could debunk bowling for Columbine in 5 minutes, but I could not refute claims I was ignorant of!
I do agree with you on the border, however. That IS a no brainer. So where are Bush and McCain on that?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Matthew N, March 10, 2008

It is amazing how this author misses several major points.

1. America is at risk of more terrorist attacks - but not just from the Middle East
This makes the false assumption that if these 'invasions' never happened and we treated this simply as a police action, the risks and threats would have been reduced. We know from history, this is not true. We have a clear history of terrorist actions by the groups in question, and that history shows they are emboldened by emasculated action on our side. Bin Laden said himself he was encouraged by our running in Somalia after the 'Black Hawk Down' incident. We can easily see that throughout history, unanswered actions have resulted in greater future attacks.

2. Democracy doesn't stop terrorism, policemen do
Policemen never are the best responders to an act of war. Police actions respond to individual crimes committed by individual actors. When you have a multiple state (in nation or movement sense) action against another state or group of states, you are dealing with an act of war, and the solution is not to react on a case by case basis but to cut off the head of the aggressive party. As for the democracy statement, one only needs to look at history as a guide to show that democracy (by any democratic engine) always stops aggression (not just terrorism). States that trade goods don't trade gunfire. At the onset of World War 2, we were faced with enemies who had a religious fanaticism to destroy their enemy by any means necessary. In the case of the Eastern front of the war, this enemy was willing to commit suicide in the act and saw civilians as legitimate primary targets of action. This was not just a nation fighting a nation, this was a deep religious action on their part. What happened within a few decades after that war ended? Democracy and capitalism moved in and instead of being an adversary, they are a strong, free ally. Every past opponent in which we encouraged democratic capitalism has become an ally.

I would go one step further to even submit to you that attempting to use police action where the military (then rebuilding into a democratic infrastructure) is necessary is what fosters terrorism because it leaves the opponent under a police state versus with a control over their own future.

3. Invasion doesn't work
Simply put, history proves this wrong. Isolationism, historically, makes one a target as interests aren't protected.

4. Winning hearts and minds requires living people
As Patton put it, when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will soon follow. But, to put a more current note on it, it depends on who you want to 'win over'. You will never win the hearts and minds of the controllers. Did we want to win the 'hearts and minds' of our enemies in the past? No, we want to destroy our enemies. Only then, can those who live under the thumb of the enemy choose their own path. Without breaking Godwin's law (because we are talking about historical context), we didn't want to win Hitler's heart and mind, we wanted his, and all like minded hearts and minds, dead or unable to continue their aggression against our allies and interests.


5. Yes, they hate our freedom - but they kill us for being over there
This entire paragraph has one major flaw- it gives the moral authority on where we should be to 'Osama' and basically says he is the final statement as to whom can be on the land. It doesn't address the fact that in Saudi Arabia for example (as that was specifically where Osama's declaration referenced) we were guests and allies of that government. He had no authority to speak over or for the land where we were. The other flaw in this is if you study the full set of declarations of the jihadists, 'over there' (land they consider their holy territory) covers all of the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Southern Europe. At what point do we draw the line and say they do not have the authority to say who can and cannot be 'over there' over whomever is the actual authority over the land in question.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by M. Harrison, March 10, 2008

Mr. Donaldson -

You get the award for least relevant comment of the week. The whole point of the article is to kill the "bully", bin Laden, and nowhere were Americans equated with terrorists. Please read before embarrassing yourself.

Matthew N. -

1. Read the article again. We must kill bin Laden - but I just would rather see us not to continue creating terrorist training videos in the process. The policies you prefer fight al-Qaida by creating more al-Qaida, and I simply point out that fact.

2. We're not in state-versus-state warfare anymore, Toto. Read the works of people who know about terrorism - it is not the act of a state. Your delusions of 20th century warfare in this age of 21st century terrorism is the equivalent of fighting WWII with Civil War muskets.

3. If terrorists kill people for isolationism, why do they declare war against our interventions and demand our withdrawal? Answer: They don't, which demonstrates the error in your reasoning and confirms fact that terrorists kill to *encourage* isolationism - hence their inspiration from Somalia.

4. You want to win the hearts and minds of the whole world, because that's where the threat comes from. The point is to prevent future attacks while you prosecute past ones.

5. It just so happens that bin Laden kills Americans over a policy that we shouldn't have in the first place. The whole trouble with our "alliance" with Saudi Arabia is that many Islamist terrorists want to kill anyone who supports the regime. These and other realities are merely reinforced by the fact they want to kill us - but we never should have been there in the first place.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Sam Banks, October 14, 2008

Do me a favor Mr. Harrison and refrain from calling me a boy. I am US Marine that has served his country in Iraq and will do so again... and again if he is so required. Don't try to appeal to a nation that sends its sons and daughters into harms way for an ideal and then call them idiots for doing so. We and I mean Americans don't bury our heads in the sand. We never have. We take the fight to those that would do us harm. Those of us that have taken the oath and signed on the dotted line know what is expected of us and realize the potential sacrifice that may be incurred. And yet we continue to serve because we know that it is better for us to serve and perhaps make the ultimate sacrifice over there, on their soil rather than our innocent families, here, on ours.
SSgt Banks
USMCR

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0