As I write this, the Taliban are on the run. By the time you read it, theymay be back in their caves. What's the lesson here? Already some in Washingtonare pronouncing the Bush strategy for dealing with terrorism a resoundingsuccess. A few are even suggesting that what we've accomplished in Afghanistanshould encourage us to topple Saddam Hussein and any other state that harbors orsponsors terrorists.
Not so fast. We may have won or be close to winning the war against theTaliban, but that's not the same as winning the war against terrorism.
Even if we topple the Taliban, we still have to install a new government inAfghanistan that is more respectful of human rights and less sympathetic toterrorism--a regime that has sufficient involvement of Pashtuns and Afghanistan'snorthern ethnic groups to remain in power without our continuous militarysupport. And we've got to accomplish all this without destabilizing Pakistan andwithout heightening tensions between Pakistan and India, both of which, notincidentally, possess nuclear weapons.
Even then, we may be no closer to stopping Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. BinLaden arrived in Afghanistan only a few years ago. He's not even an Afghan (nor,for that matter, were any of the men who hijacked planes on September 11). BinLaden could shift his headquarters to Chechnya, Somalia, Libya, or any number ofplaces where the terrain is wild and governments are weak or tolerant ofterrorists. He may already have done so.
And even if we find bin Laden and imprison, assassinate, or otherwiseincapacitate him without turning him into a martyr, violating international law,and unleashing decades of bloody retribution, that wouldn't necessarily endal-Qaeda. Bin Laden is a central figure but there are others, such as Aymanal-Zawahiri, the Egyptian-born doctor, reputed to be as powerful. Al-Qaeda itselfappears to be decentralized and loosely coordinated, with hundreds of fieldagents and cells, akin to a global franchise system.
Of course, even if we quash al-Qaeda by tracking down every member and disabling every cell, that wouldn't end global terrorism. Hence the argumentswe're now hearing for extending the military offensive beyond Afghanistan. Buthow far beyond Afghanistan? The State Department lists some 30 known terroristnetworks operating in 50 countries. Not all of these countries actively "sponsor"terrorists, but all are "harboring" them, wittingly or unwittingly. Included onthe State Department's list are Aum Shinrikyo, the group that released sarinnerve gas in several Tokyo subway trains in 1995 and is reputed to have cells inAustralia, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, and the United States.
There's also Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all ofwhich are said to have connections with the Japanese Red Army and other terroristnetworks. And don't forget the 17 November group, headquartered in Greece; AbuSayyaf and the Alex Boncayao Brigade, in the southern Philippines and Manila;not to mention Sikh terrorist groups, the Real IRA, Israel's Kach, Basqueseparatists, and guerrillas in Peru and Turkey. This list doesn't even includethe Russian Mafia and other organized-crime networks that traffic in drugs,weapons, prostitution, and slavery--clandestine groups that are as ruthless asany terrorists anywhere.
And even if we stamped out all global terrorist organizations without turningthe entire world into a U.S. police state, Americans still wouldn't be safe fromterrorism. With advanced technology, a lone psychopath can kill thousands. SeniorFBI agents now speculate that the anthrax-laced mail that's already caused fourdeaths in this country and closed part of official Washington may be the productof an American citizen working out of a small, well-equipped microbiology lab.
This doesn't mean that we throw up our hands in despair and conclude thatthere's no way to win against terrorism. But it does suggest that we have to bemuch cleverer. We're so used to fighting enemy states, hitting military targets,and gaining geographic territory that we're in danger of losing sight of the realgoal. What's most needed in a war against terrorism is better intelligence. That19 foreigners (no doubt aided by many accomplices) were able to hijack and pilotfour U.S. jetliners simultaneously and ram three of them into their targetssignifies an intelligence breakdown of breathtaking proportion. Gaining controlover a country run by despicable people doesn't necessarily improve ourintelligence capacity. Bombs are no substitute for agents adept in foreignlanguages and cultures who can monitor and infiltrate terrorist networks.
We also need better ability to track and control chemical, biological, andnuclear weapons, including those here in the United States. (The FBI is stilltrying to discover how many laboratories in the United States have legal accessto anthrax spores.) Thousands of tons of weapons-grade uranium, plutonium,chemicals, and pathogens are still vulnerable to terrorists at hundreds of sitesin former Soviet states. Yet the White House has decided to block new spendingaimed at dismantling these arsenals and buying off more of Russia's unemployedformer nuclear engineers. Our policy should be just the reverse.
Such efforts can reduce the odds of future terrorist attacks because theydirectly target the means by which the enemy operates. Bombing nations andtoppling governments do not. The only way to win a war against terrorism is byfighting terrorism itself.
