It's not the Global War on Terror just a global war on terror
John Brennan, President Obama’s senior advisor on terrorism spoke yesterday at CSIS. It was supposed to signal something of a new approach to the challenge, but frankly did not break any new ground. Brennan argued:
“Al-Qaeda has proven to be adaptive and highly resilient and remains the most serious terrorist threat we face as a nation…”
That reflects a consensus that predates 9/11. In many ways Secretary Clinton’s warning about the growing terrorist threat from Somalia is actually more interesting. There is a very large Somali community in the United States, and dozens of young Somalis have already been recruited to fight there. In terms of the threat of an attack on U.S. soil, I think we’re now at the point where an attack linked to Somali extremists is as likely as one from al Qaeda central.
Brennan also discussed the importance of Afghanistan:
Brennan outlined steps the Obama administration is taking to curb this threat, including seeking to push the militant extremist Taliban “out of key population areas in Afghanistan so we can prevent the return of al-Qaeda to that country.”
This is also just reinforcing an existing consensus. It is not clear why Brennan and the administration remain obsessed with terrorists operating out of Afghanistan specifically. Yes, al Qaeda was based there prior to 9/11, but there is nothing particularly significant about Afghanistan that makes a terrorist based there any more dangerous than one based on the Pakistani side of the border… or in Karachi… or really anywhere else. Indeed, I think a compelling case can be made that terrorist operating out of a variety of urban “ungoverned spaces” with close promity to international communications would pose a more immediate danger.
Continuing:
Brennan said Obama has “identified as the most immediate and extreme threat to global security the possibility that terrorists will obtain and use a nuclear weapon.”
“The risk of just one terrorist with just one nuclear weapon is a risk we simply cannot afford to take,” Brennan said.
At least he didn’t say, “But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” Again, this is not newsworthy, although Brennan did stress the importance of arms control initiatives to manage the risk rather than pre-emptive war.
Finally,
Brennan used much of his speech to stress that the administration’s counterterrorism strategy includes more than countering military threats.
“Any comprehensive approach” must also address “the upstream factors — the conditions that help fuel violent extremism,” he said.
“If we fail to confront the broader political, economic, and social conditions in which extremists thrive, then there will always be another recruit in the pipeline, another attack coming downstream,” he said.
“Extremist violence and terrorist attacks are therefore often the final murderous manifestation of a long process rooted in hopelessness, humiliation, and hatred,” Brennan said.
Again, this mirrors the Bush Administration. The difference, I take it, is that while the Bush Administration believed that democratization — by force if necessary — was the key to addressing these “upstream factors,” the Obama Administration intends to rely on more traditional means such as development assistant, aid to civil society programs, and so on.
Certainly, the approach Brennan laid out is lighter on military force and heavier on the other instruments of statecraft. But what is stunning is how closely these arguments match the Bush Administration’s diagnosis of the problem and the scope of the U.S. response.
In terms of diagnosis, there is still a broad reliance macro causes to explain individual behavior. I think there is some reason to doubt this linkage — analytically and more significantly strategically. As I have pointed out many times, there are more gang members in Los Angeles than “jihadists” worldwide. If we can’t prevent gang violence in our own cities, how can we hope to prevent people from joining terror networks abroad? As long as groups like al Qaeda can survive by recruiting a few thousand individuals out of a potential pool of 1.3 billion Muslims, it seems tremendously unlikely that we will ever be able to eliminate “upstream” factors enough make a dent in the capabilities of terrorist groups.
In terms of the scope of the U.S. response… it is, if anything, even broader than that of the Bush Administration. We must go everywhere and anywhere fixing anything and everything in the hopes of eliminating grievances that might cause terrorism. There is no sense of limits or restraint in this counter-terrorism strategy. The Obama Administration’s embrace of exceptionally expansive worldview remains a curious feature of comtemporary American foreign policy.
[...] be found here: It’s not the Global War on Terror just a global war on terror: In terms of the scope of the U.S. response… it is, if anything, even broader than that of the [...]
Bernard,
Yesterday’s post was interesting and there may be a kernel of truth there. I fall into the Exum camp, but intellectually I believe it is important to question our premises periodically, even often. I think Andrew was saying that having Dr. Bachevich on the podium as part of the debate was doing just that. You just want more of that — and you want to change Exum’s mind about his assumptions… On today’s post, I’d like to ask you what you would have said if you were John Brennan. What significant differences would you speech have from his or from Bush-era GWOT talking points?
[...] colleague Evelyn Farkas challenged me to provide a follow-on to my somewhat critical review of John Brennan’s speech outlining the [...]
[...] colleague Evelyn Farkas challenged me to provide a follow-on to my somewhat critical review of John Brennan’s speech outlining the [...]