Six Errors of the War on Terror

While I admit that I am no expert on terrorism, I have been continually bothered by certain elements of our “War on Terror” as presented to me through mass media. Like being in a room of frames that are not straight, I feel the compulsion to set a few things right, at least as far as I can perceive. Below are six of the errors that I felt compelled to discuss in a somewhat systematic manner.

The term “War on Terror”

Why it is wrong:
You can’t fight a tactic. Declaring a “War on Terror” is akin to declaring the fight against Germany in WWII the “War on Blitzkriegs.” You must fight those rallying individuals around an ideology which makes them want to employ terrorism. For the sake of this article I will refer to “terrorists” as those who organize to employ asymmetric military tactics in support of an ideology not directly supported by a nation.

Why the error is made:
Individual groups may be employing common strategies, but this is likely because they each have access to similar types of resources to use against the same military apparatus, the US Military. For decades the United States and Russia have been building and deploying conventional military weaponry around the world, but this equipment is difficult to attain unless you have the capital. Terrorists train with and deploy lower cost, less complex, easier to attain weaponry and specifically use it in a manner which conventional military find difficult to manage. They have commonly found a tactical weakness of that apparatus which they can exploit with the resources they have available.

What are the repercussions of the error:
If individual groups are treated as one bad guy simply because of the tactics they employ, then the United States loses the ability to accord peace from those rallying individuals to fight because they are essentially refusing to recognize the motivating force. Further, this forced association brings individual groups together on tactical matters and encourages them to share information and resources for further terrorist tactics while not necessarily merging their motivating centers. Since these groups were using a common technique (terrorism) initially because they independently found that to be the US’s weakness, they now are given the added benefit of being associated with groups that they may have previously opposed or been neutral to; their only common discussion points: terrorist tactics and opposition to the United States.

How can it be fixed:
For starters call it a “War on Tyranny.” Properly identify the individual organizations causing individuals to want to fight. Deal with the source and the reason it resonates with those willing to fight. Properly explain the illogic of their position in the same media which they use to convince others they are right. Do not shut down their media, infect it smartly. Either way, you can get out the message you want potential “terrorists” to hear or you destroy the credibility of the communication medium.

Not really a war without end

Why its wrong:
Propaganda-wise this idea gives radical groups hope and the “civilized world” despair. Ultimately, it’s clearly not true. Just because the current military minds can’t find the solution only means that new military minds need to be brought forward.

Why the error is made:
The Western philosophy of war is that the objective of war is conquest, but the objective of a “terrorist” war is to engage the enemy until there are drained of resources. Modern terrorism was forged in the cauldron of the Cold War. Their most public “victory” was against the Russians in Afghanistan in which they held out and drained down the conventional forces. Terrorists win more conscripts so long as the Western military is engaged and blowing things up. Every bomb dropped in front of BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera is a global recruiting video for their radical ideology validating their “need”. Every roadside IED which explodes shows they are being “successful.”

What are the repercussions:
The repercussions are exactly what the “terrorists” want: protracted involvement, resource strain by the traditional military system, terrorist entrenchment in the region, growing numbers of recruits for “terrorists” and decreasing recruits for the traditional military system

How can it be fixed:
Every war has an end, and it only serves the enemy to say that it won’t end or won’t end any time soon. New thinkers need to be brought in to understand the dynamic of terrorist strategy and undermine it. It should be apparent to those fighting that the world which would remain after such a protracted and violent struggle wouldn’t be worth retaining. Can we figure out why they still fight?

More military force will yield better results

Why its wrong:
Traditional military displays of force are recruiting videos for terrorists not deterrents. Displays of military capability were the cornerstones of the Cold War from which the modern terrorists sprang. Those who are using terrorist techniques are already aware of the military capabilities of its foes. How else can you explain why Osama hasn’t been caught? In fact, those who use terrorism count on the traditional military display of force to validate their hatespeech.

Why the error is made:
It’s hard to break old habits, and traditionally, displays of force are deterrents for formal military engagement because they display the capability to significantly destroy the military apparatus of the nation or its support apparatus. Terrorists do not care about the status of the state or the traditional military apparatus. Terrorists infect states and wait for it to collapse to gather up the pieces.

What are the repercussions:
Terrorists want the state they inhabit to collapse because they will be able to take it over. More force and display by the traditional military works in entrenching the terrorizing organization in whatever country they infect. If they become entrenched they will make the war so difficult, taunting the military to do more damage, that they will drive out everyone who can afford to leave, the upper and middle classes, leaving only the radicalized and those who they can recruit or intimidate.

How it can be fixed:
“Terrorism” is a tactic of propaganda and stagnation. Infect the avenues by which they transmit their propaganda and expose the vile condition that they would have that region run. Use force only as necessary, and as discreetly as possible. Provide highly visible displays of cooperation with the local population and actually assist the local population with trying to make their lives better by availing them more resources and the ability to create a stable life.

If we stop fighting, the terrorists will say we lost

Why it is wrong:
Literally, this is correct, but the idea that anyone should believe “them” is ridiculous. Terrorists work on a strategy of propaganda, of course they will say they won, but the question is why anyone should care.

Why the error is made:
Because terrorist will do this, and normal response is to say “nu-uh” or to just keep fighting until we can say we won. However, those who use terrorism aren’t aiming for conquest, they merely want a forum to gain recruits and to deplete their enemies resources. Without a war, they lose, but like good propagandists, they won’t admit it.

What are the repercussions of the error:
Protracted war, U.S. resource drain, U.S. recruitment drop, radical group recruitment gain

How can it be fixed:
Demonstrate terrorist speech to be invalid in all media including all of the means by which their networks communicate. Show how a world by the ideologies they support is so much worse than that which could otherwise be.

Democracy is a natural tendency

Why it’s wrong:
The idea of democracy comes from an explicit and implicit education of ideas which are required to understand how it is valid. One may think it’s a universal concept, if you are fortunate enough to be born and live in a country that is democratic, but that is only because your brain has made an illogical assumption that the rest of the world grew up in the same context which you have. This isn’t so. Democracy must be taught, and for this to happen one must have access to the information which teaches it as well as the ability to understand that information. Remember, humans have existed in non-democratic nations far longer than democratic. If the majority of a population grows up under a tyrant they may have no means of learning the fundamental concepts of democracy.

Why the error is made:
This error can be due to the commonality of perspective by those who were seeking to implement a democratic government. If the majority of the group planning to put in place a democratic government assumed the ideas of democracy were inherent because it was so ingrained in the societies which they grew up then they would have no reason to question it.

What are the repercussions of the error:
The repercussions can be grave in that if one assumes that “nature will take its course” upon the elimination of a non democratic ruling institution then they may make too few plans to direct the development. Chaos will follow as the population, lacking direction, either waits for a new leader or fights to establish a new tyrant.

How can it be fixed:

To start, education must be provided to the population in question in a pervasive and non-traditional way. Finding histories of democratic ideas in the texts of the region and publishing or teaching them widely is a good start. An autonomous government should be put in place to deal with the daily routine until a more robust government can be put in place. Build up to a democratic government by starting with towns, building to regions, states and then a nation.

Terrorism is a result of disconnected societies

Why it’s wrong:
This error is simply not true. Terrorist use the internet and cable/satellite TV, modern video production tools, and recruit for high tech personnel. They leverage the information superhighway. Radical groups actually increase in number as information systems come into formerly disconnected areas because it allows them to find eachother and to find radical resources more easily.

Why the error is made:
U.S. observers commonly make this error because they confuse the dislike of the message America is sending over the information network with dislike of the technology which carries that message. At its core the American message conflicts with the regional power base. That message is a convenient and pervasive scapegoat for corrupt leaders and conditions. They are not disconnected because they oppose these messages—in fact, they are connecting in these acts of opposition.

What are the repercussions of the error:
Keep pushing the message or try to get them to understand why their wrong, actually encourages the connection against that message and provides more avenues to organize against it. Pushing more information technology only encourages more connection between formerly disconnected groups and provides these groups the false perception that their numbers are greater than reality.

How it can be fixed:
Commercial trade and associated information shouldn’t be allowed with countries that don’t embrace our political ideologies. Tyrants will blame the invading brands and the associated country for their own failures and the conditions in those nations will continue; frustration and anger will fester; and the radical groups will grow.