Strategery: The Terror War In Perspective

From IBD:

Posted 3/3/2006
Defense Policy: The Pentagon's plan for a "long war" against terror is not a sign of failure, but of commitment. When NATO was formed at the beginning of the Cold War, no one asked what our exit strategy was.

In 1945 American troops had toppled Adolf Hitler and stood astride a devastated Europe, a situation like our toppling of Saddam Hussein and our efforts to rebuild Iraq. Then, as now, a new threat arose that would require a long-term commitment and significant expenditures in treasure and blood.

Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" would soon descend across Europe, and we would fight hot wars in places like Korea, Vietnam and Grenada. We would fight proxy wars in places like Nicaragua, Angola and, yes, Afghanistan. We would also fight a new type of war — the Cold War. And we would win.

We now find ourselves in another new kind of war that also requires patience, commitment and what Bush 41 called the "vision thing." Planners for the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently prepared a 27-page briefing titled "Fighting the Long War — Military Strategy for the War on Terrorism." It's part of an ongoing effort by the Bush administration and Pentagon to explain to the American people and Congress the nature of that war and the stakes if we don't win it.

The briefing paper was prepared for Rear Adm. William Sullivan, vice director for strategic plans and policies within the Joint Staff. Sullivan used it as the basis for a recent presentation to a national security study group at Mississippi State University.

Osama bin Laden, the paper says, wants to "expand the Muslim empire to historical significance." And Iraq "has become the focus of the enemy's efforts. If they win in Iraq, they have a base from which to expand their terror . . . an emirate in Iraq that serves as a base of operations from which they can revive the Caliphate (Islamic rule). Baghdad becomes the capital of the Caliphate.

"The United States cannot be defeated militarily," the briefing goes on. "The enemy knows this. But consider . . . terror attacks weaken the world economy. Continued casualties weaken national resolve. Traditional allies prefer accommodation."

Bin Laden, the document states, "is absolutely committed to his cause. His religious ideology successfully attracts recruits. He has a sufficient population base to protract the conflict. Even support of 1% of the Muslim population would equate to over 12 million 'enemies.' " That's a lot of people willing to fly planes into buildings, wear explosive vests to weddings or drive car bombs.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at the National Press Club earlier this year coinciding with the release of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. That report detailed the changes in defense strategy for this "long war."

"This war — like the Cold War before it — will be a struggle against a hateful ideology that has attempted to hijack Islam for its nefarious purposes," Rumsfeld said. "It's not going to be settled with a signing ceremony on the USS Missouri."

On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush told Congress and the nation: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen." He continued: "Our war with terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

The president knows all this. Now he needs to educate the American people and Congress. We are in it for the long haul.