Terror Attacks in Spain: Implications for American Foreign Policy & The War on Terror

The terror attacks that occurred on March 11th, exactly 2 1/2 years (911 days) after the September 11th attacks, are widely believed to have some connection to al Qaeda. What does this tell us about the progress of America's war on terror thus far?

America's War on Terror has disrupted, but not significantly weakened al-Qaeda. This is evidenced by the fact that the attacks in Spain are the largest since 9-11, nearly tying the number killed in the Kenyan embassy bombings by al-Qaeda of 1998, the largest pre 9-11 attack. (timeline of al-Qaeda operations) The failure to capture Osama bin Laden, along with the continued (and in some cases increasing) presence of al-Qaeda in North Africa logically and correctly lead us to believe that the disruption of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (there is no evidence that they were ever in Iraq), paired with the invasion of Iraq, has caused less of a destruction of the network, and more of a dispersion of radical ideology that is strongly catalyzed by growing anti-U.S. sentiment (thanks mostly to Iraq). Some would even argue that although al-Qaeda has lost some key leaders, training camps, and other replaceable assets, American military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have incited new levels of anti-American sentiment and provided terrorism with more of their most important asset: terrorists. Why is it that after the monstrous spending (please note that current figures are significantly higher than in the somewhat-outdated example found in the link) in Afghanistan and Iraq, al-Qaeda has not been weakened in any tangible sense? Quite simply, it is because Bush and crew (not that any Democrat would have adopted a better strategy) have failed to recognize the nature of terrorist organizations, and have proceeded to wage a traditional war against an amorphous, loosely organized terrorist network. Going to war with sovereign nations to fight extremist terrorist cells that feed off of military meddling (as in Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.) makes as much sense as treating cancer patients with high levels of radiation. Using these tactics would be as effective as declaring war on the city of San Fransisco to stop gay marriages. What George Bush needs is a lesson in asymmetric warfare. Lucky for you, George, I am better at understanding (and possibly even implementing) effective military strategy than you or anyone in your administration. Until you get booted from office and I become Secretary of Defense, have some links to nibble on.

Asymmetric Warfare a la Guardian
Project on Defense Alternatives
Political Violence and Asymmetric Warfare
Reshaping the Military for Asymmetric Warfare

Because of U.S. dominance in [second-generation or attrition] warfare, however, opponents instead are likely to fight "asymmetrically" — avoiding U.S. strengths and attacking its vulnerabilities. They are likely to use either third-generation maneuver warfare (with regular armed forces) or, more likely, fourth-generation irregular warfare (with irregular attacks on vulnerable military units, population, infrastructure, culture, and institutions).

Two great military strategists — an ancient one, Sun Tzu, and a 20th century one, the late John Boyd . . . explain how to fight and win such warfare. Broadly, these strategists focused on how to win by outmaneuvering an enemy mentally, so as to limit the need for actual combat. Greatly simplified, their ideas suggest that to win asymmetric war:

Understand that military force is not the only, or necessarily the best, means of achieving national goals — excessive or inappropriate use of force breeds resentment and plants the seeds of future conflict.

Attract allies to one's own side, and subtract them from an opponent's side.

Focus on two major and complementary elements: create "harmony" and cohesion on one's own side, and foster chaos and paralysis on the other side

Surround the opponent with sustained ambiguity, deception, surprise, isolation, and menace; pursue multiple approaches and attacks, then switch between them and develop new thrusts faster than the opponent can cope; alternate unpredictably between the expected and unexpected, the orthodox and unorthodox, distracting moves and decisive moves, or in Sun Tzu's terminology, cheng and ch'i.

Understand that success in conflict depends most upon people, then ideas, and least upon hardware.

Fix fraying leadership and cohesion in the military, in part by ending constant personnel rotation among units, halting the system of premature discharging of mid-level officers, and training and empowering officers to exercise more initiative.

End a fixation on complex hardware, which is not only unreliable and expensive, but also creates complex bureaucracies to build, deploy, operate, supply, and fix it — bureaucracies that are unsuited to exercising the most important components of third- and fourth-generation warfare strategy: agility, quickness, flexibility, responsiveness, creativity, initiative.

Structure and equip U.S. forces so that they: are agile and flexible; provide commanders with multiple options; can switch between different thrusts quickly; continuously reshape themselves through experimentation and training; and most importantly, are well led. [pp. 72-3] - From RMAW (Link Above)

So how should we wage this war on terror? First we should abandon the futile task of invading every nation we suspect has ties to terrorists. (Especially when we cannot even depend on our own intelligence to separate the "good guys" from the "bad guys".) Economic sanctions are obviously also not the key, as they only starve the unoffending populations of these nations. The U.S. government should work with those governments who recognize the problem of terrorism, such as Pakistan, and in the meantime adopt a more defensive roll in this "war." It is impossible to kill every terrorist in the world, but it is very possible to extinguish the driving force behind such extremism while protecting our citizens.
Also, if the $106,000,000,000+ (yes, that's 106 billion dollars) that we have spent on the war in Iraq thus far had been channeled to more effective homeland security measures, I'm sure every reasoning citizen of the country would feel much safer than they do now, even in a world without Saddam Hussein (who had absolutely no means of attacking the U.S.). In those cases where "rogue" governments do not cooperate with the removal of terrorists, build international support for any absolutely necessary invasions -- acting unilaterally or nearly-unilaterally is very effective at building anti-U.S. sentiment and recruiting new terrorists.

The Bottom line: send a letter to your congressmen telling them you want Odhav as Secretary of Defense.

A la O'Reilly, I'll give you the last word.
No, not really. I'm always right.