 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ten months into America's war on terrorism, with no major enemy attacks since September 11, the terrorists' host government in Afghanistan overthrown, the al Qaeda network disrupted, its leadership either dead or on the run, nearly half the American public thinks the war is at stalemate, and 14 percent believe the terrorists are winning. Which leads naturally to the question: Are you kidding me? Of course, the current war is not like World War II — it is not a duel to the death against two militaristic superstates bent on global domination — and not as easy to plot progress with lines on a map. The war coverage has not been as dramatic lately either, what with the heavy lifting against the Taliban over. However, if we are going to talk about who is winning and who is losing, it would be useful first to figure out what constitutes victory. At the most basic level one could employ process of elimination — if one side is winning, the other must be losing. So is al Qaeda ahead? They pulled off a brilliant tactical maneuver on 9/11, but there is a vast difference between winning a battle and achieving victory in war. None of the objectives of al Qaeda's 1996 declaration of war have been met, not even close. It was clear even last November that bin Laden's strategy had failed, and his terror network would have to come up with a new operations plan (assuming they survived or remained at liberty, which for many was a bad assumption). Can we define victory in terms of territory? Well, whatever turf the enemy controlled, they have lost it. I do not count the scattered safe houses, caves, basements, and other places they are hiding; temporarily occupying a place while being hunted down does not constitute control. How about casualties? Al Qaeda loses troops daily, either killed or captured. The antiterror forces have lost relatively few (and remember that our allied partners have made sacrifices in this war, it's not a exclusively American show). The bad guys aren't winning on body count, even at the traditional 14:1 ratio considered standard for guerrilla operations. Besides, bin Laden predicted we would retreat after only a few combat deaths, as we did after Mogadishu, a battle he claimed credit for. Do they have initiative, freedom of movement? Can they coordinate counterattacks? Have they gotten inside our decision-making loop? No way. Bin Laden spent most of last fall pleading for some kind of strike against the United States — or its allies — or Pakistan — or the U.N. — or anybody — right up until his last verifiable message of late December. Since then there have been a few successful attacks, such as against the synagogue in Tunisia and the consulate in Karachi, but in the grand scheme of things these were minor incidents, certainly not up to 9/11 standards. Meanwhile the allies continue to hunt down terrorists and their sympathizers, restricting their movements, dictating times, places, and means of engagement, and generally making life uncomfortable. Of course, al Qaeda operatives keep promising attacks, and they may yet execute one. Is the silence what people find so disturbing, the suspense? It would not be the first time. In February 1942, Earl Warren, showing the same mental agility he later brought to the Supreme Court, said that it was significant that there had been no reports of sabotage by Japanese Americans. "That is the most ominous sign of the whole situation," he said, and used it to justify their deportations to internment camps. But rest assured, the terrorists are not waiting to attack because they want ratchet up the tension. They desperately want to hit this country right now. In fact, they have been trying; but they no longer benefit from our lack of alertness. I'm certain that a year ago a Saudi businessman could have bought all the Moroccan Zodiac boats he wanted and no one would have noticed — but in the current wartime climate that buyer's inquiry was a red flag that led to breaking up a planned water-borne assault on Mediterranean shipping. And you can bet for every such report you hear there are a dozen other aborted, disrupted, or otherwise foiled plans. So are we losing because Osama bin Laden is still alive? Personally, I will need more evidence to substantiate that one. You couldn't shut the guy up during the Afghan campaign, and then he suddenly went silent. Maybe he is in hiding, or maybe he is gone on to his just desserts. I am awaiting the promised July 4 video, maybe he will surprise me. In any case, the war does not end with bin Laden's death but the elimination of his network and the suppression, destruction, or reform of terror-supporting states. And while his demise itself won't end the war, I do not believe that final victory can be achieved while bin Laden lives. Which is not to say we would lose if we did not get him, but neither would we discontinue the hunt. The United States is not losing this war, nor are we in a stalemate with our wily foes. By any reasonable definition of victory we are winning, and winning well. The problem is lack of public awareness, which is a consequence of the character of the conflict. If people are waiting for a defining event like D-Day or Hiroshima, they won't get it. As President Bush said, this is a war that will be fought in the shadows, many stories will never be told. But every day allied troops engage the foe. Field agents kick in doors of terrorist suspects and go in with guns drawn. Other operatives track down and seize terrorist assets. Interrogators draw information from al Qaeda detainees that leads to further apprehensions, frustrates terrorist plans, or otherwise saves lives. This is the nature of the struggle. It is a war like none we have ever fought. The conflict has moved from the Afghan plains to the Pakistan mountains, the North African desert, the Philippine jungles, hotel rooms in Europe, and apartments in the United States. The enemy is trying desperately to strike back hard — yes, this could happen, don't assume it couldn't — but they cannot win, cannot achieve what they set out to do. The United States may never be entirely free of the terrorist menace, but the enemy must deal with the allied menace, and anyone who doesn't think that is a terrifying prospect just hasn't been paying attention. — James S. Robbins is a national-security analyst & NRO contributor. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
n
September 1942, ten months into America's involvement in World War II,
things did not look promising. German forces were near their high-water
marks in Russia and North Africa, and American beaches were black with
oil from ships sunk by U-boats. The Japanese had been defeated at Midway
and the Coral Sea, and Marines were holding Guadalcanal, but the enemy
occupied Southeast Asia, the Philippines, and much of Melanesia. The United
States was mobilizing to put its war plans into effect, and soon the tide
of war would turn, but at the time, this was only a hope. Final victory
was three long years away.
