The War On Terrorism

by Joseph D. Douglass Jr., Washington DC, 16 March 2003

As we draw closer to war with Iraq, it seems appropriate to step back from the immediate crisis and spend some time examining the war in its broader context. Where have we come from and where are we headed?

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, were a resounding wake-up call for all Americans. Suddenly, Americans understoodthe meaning of terrorism. No longer was it just an “overseas” problem.

America was at war with a new enemy – faceless, shadowy networks of individuals having global reach and harboring a hatred toward the United States. It quickly became painfully evident that these networks had access to weapons of mass destruction (very sophisticated anthrax) that could be employed in ways that would defy U.S. intelligence in their efforts to determine responsibility.

Suddenly, the word “evil” was no longer politically incorrect as it was when President Reagan warned us about the “evil empire.”

In less than two weeks, President Bush had set a new course for American policy: to destroy international terrorism and all those who support or harbor terrorists.

This policy was put in action in Afghanistan. A global war on terrorism, led by U.S. intelligence and supported by U.S. military might, was underway.

What Official Documents Say

Over the past year, the new post 9-11 policy has been set forth in a series of White House documents beginning with a National Security Strategy (NSS) and following with National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (NSfCT).

As we head into war in Iraq, it is timely to review these two documents (both are available on the Internet) and statements by President Bush (GB) that are contained within them. This material presents an overall view of where our country is headed.

The New Mission: War on Terrorism

The U.S. reaction to the terrorist attacks of 2001 was immediate. Suddenly, the country had a real and understandable mission, a national commitment. The documents are very clear on this point:

“We must fight terrorist networks and all those who support them using every instrument of national power.”(NSfCT)

“We will not rest until terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been defeated.” (GB in NSfCT)

“The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aide to them.” (NSS)

Motivation

The reason behind this new mission is clearly set forth in the documents. It is the combination of terrorists harboring an irrational hatred of the United States and their determination to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons.

“The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology.” (GB in NSS)

Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. . . these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression. . . [and can be used] to blackmail the United States.” (NSS)

“Our enemies . . . are seeking weapons of mass destruction . . . with determination.” (NSS) This combination is intolerable and these emerging threats must be acted upon “before they are fully formed.” (NSS)

“We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.” (NSS)

U.S. Strategy

Although both documents are over 20 pages long, the strategy, or policy, that will guide U.S. actions can be simply stated:

“The only path to safety is the path of action.” (GB in NSfCT)

We will attack the entire infrastructure upon which the terrorist groups depend: sanctuaries, leadership, command/control/communications, material support, and finances. (NSfCT)

“The United States will target individuals, state sponsors, and transnational networks that enable terrorism to flourish.” (NSfCT)

“To defeat terrorism in today’s globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism.” (NSS)

“Our calling,” President Bush proclaimed, is to strengthen and sustain an international effort to find and destroy terrorism. (GB in NSfCT)

Additional Strategic Goals

At the same time, and with a longer-range perspective in mind, the documents emphasize the need to achieve major global changes. These changes are believed necessary to eliminate the conditions that spawn or are used justify terrorism, such as “poverty, corruption, religious conflict and ethnic strife.” (NSfCT) In many respects, these changes may constitute a greater challenge than that posed by the war on terrorism itself.

“The United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.” (NSS)

“U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism.” (NSS) We “stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerances; and respect for private property.” (NSS)

“We strive to build an international order where more countries and peoples are integrated into a world consistent with the values and interests we share with our partners – values such as human dignity, rule of law, respect for individual liberties, open and free economies, and religious tolerance.” (NSfCT)

Victory

Since the war began on September 11, Administration spokesmen have emphasized how different this war will be. The enemy is hard to identify. “There will be no quick or easy end to this conflict,” and “Victory will be gradual.” (NSfCT) We may not even see the end of this war in our lifetime.

More Than A War On Terrorism

In the National Security Strategy, the task the President has chosen is not just a war on terrorism. The task includes “this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.” (NSS) “Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade.” NSS) and “Make the world a better place for all its citizens.” (NSS)

This raises a serious question: Are we engaged in a war on terrorism or a messianic mission to spread democracy, industrial development, free markets, and free trade? My reading of the National Security Strategy is that it is both.

In addition to responding to the attack of 9-11, there is the unmistakable presence of “globalist” or “New World Order” interests. This involves an assault on the national sovereignty of the United States and all other nations. Sovereignty is sacrificed in the interests of free markets, free trade, and the opening of societies to the free flow of ideas, principally those of the West. The New World Order, in effect, replaces freedom and independence with slavery and servitude.[1] The people who are pushing it are mainlythose that dominate international finance and banking, transnational and international corporations and businesses, international bureaucrats, and socialists who equate the New World Order with global socialism, and those who see nation state borders as interfering with what is necessary, in their judgment, to make the world a better place for all people.[2]

The New World Order involves massive political, economic, and cultural changes. Efforts to accelerate such changes should be expected in times of war. Wars are an opportunity to change cultural, political, and economic systems without the people really knowing what is happening. Changes are accepted “in the interests of fighting the war” and the longer the war can be stretched out, the more time there is to get the changes “accepted.” This use of wars to achieve such change was the focus of the Carnegie Foundation board of directors early in the past century. The major tax-exempt foundations have been one of the prime movers in the battle to change the United States into a socialist secular society. They came under investigation in the early 1950s by the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations. The idea of using war to manipulate the society was identified in the Carnegie board minutes by the committee staff that was headed by Norman Dodd.[3]The war on terrorism is a good opportunity because it is global and dominated by New World Order interests, such as oil price stability, open borders, and turning underdeveloped areas into consumer markets.

The New World Order was highly touted during the 1991 Gulf War. On the eve of the invasion, President George H. W. Bush explained, “I think that what’s at stake here is the New World Order.” This was January 7, 1991. Two days later he said, “[The Gulf crisis] has to do with a New World Order. And that New World Order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective.” On January 16, he said, “When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at thisNew World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”[4]

This attention placed on the New World Order went underground shortly after the end of the war. This was because of a major negative reaction raised by many vocal critics. The emphasis placed on the New World Order by President Bush and others (such as Dr. Henry Kissinger) was used as evidence of a wide-reaching effort to destroy national sovereignty and bring the United States under a socialist world government.

The New World Order is not mentioned in the U.S. strategy documents that chart the war on terrorism. Nevertheless, it is clear from the language used in the National Security Strategy and National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (for example, referring to people ascitizens of the world) that New World Order proponents are still very much alive and in control.

It is also clear that the main thrust in these strategy documents is not just the war on terrorism but equally the propagandizing and advancing what the United States is already doing to advance the New World Order agenda, including 1) opening societies to the free flow of ideas from the West, 2) achieving desired “social change” within various countries, 3) furthering the movement of international capital into the Third World (this was first surfaced as an element of U.S. national policy in the 1961 (Kennedy Administration) revision of the Basic National Security Policy), 4) supporting and advancing the scope of supra-national institutions such as the UN, IMF, WTO, OAS, NAFTA, European Union, and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), and 5) most important, furthering the expansion of free markets, free trade[5], and the emergence of consumer markets around the world.[6](NSS)

TheNational Security Strategy takes the existing U.S. New World Order policies to new heights. This is demonstrated in the call for an unbelievable menu of international welfare, planned development, free trade and free market mechanisms, and directed changes (legal and financial) as are called for in the New World Order agenda. Whoever is running the U.S. currency presses can expect full employment until the paper runs out.

In all of this, the discussion respecting needed changes embraces Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and China. Still, the countries most explicitly targeted for immediate political and social change are those of the Middle East. “We will wage a war of ideas . . . deligitimize terrorism, support moderate and modern governments, especially in the Muslim world” (NSfCT) and promote rights of free speech, respect for women, religious and ethnic tolerance, and of the people to rebel against repressive governments. (NSS)

Conspicuous In Its Absence

The documents all take the attacks of 9-11 as their point of departure.

While the attacks of 9-11 are key, they do not contain a critical element that seems to dominate the U.S. motivation. This element is the presence of weapons of mass destruction, WMD, which includes chemical, toxin, biological, and nuclear weapons.

The special event that is missing in the documents is the anthrax attack that took place the month following 9-11. In several respects it is more chilling and fearsome than the highly visible 9-11 attacks, even though its costs and deaths were so much less.

Although several people were killed, the anthrax event was not an “attack” as much as it was a demonstration of how easy it is to distribute biological warfare agents. The demonstration was designed to achieve publicity, and it did. Use of the U.S. Postal System showed how anyone could be reached. The anthrax and U.S. mail were just two of a large menu of agents and distribution means that could have been used in a covertoperation in which the identity of the perpetrator could be hidden. In such a case, what response is there? Who do you respond against?

The anthrax was very sophisticated and, thus, is now believed to have been the work of a state sponsor, not just a shadowy network of individuals. The implications are disturbing and disliked. Those most capable are Russia[7], China, and Cuba. All three have been reported to have thousands of trained intelligence agents in the United States. Their arsenal of capabilities includes an unbelievable assortment of different chemical, toxin, and biological agents that are far beyond the comprehension of U.S. security officials. Perhaps this is why the anthrax event was not mentioned. No one wants to focus attention on this event and on the subsequent inability of U.S. intelligence to determine where the anthrax came from or who designed and implemented the “demonstration,” not to mention why.

There are nearly two dozen terrorist groups and terrorist nations, including Al-Qaeda, now known to be developing or testing biological, toxin, and/or chemical warfare capabilities. These weapons are cheap, easy to make relative to a nuclear warhead, and they can be used selectively, as demonstrated, or in a way that would cause massive casualties (thousands to millions or tens of millions of casualties) or substantial economic damage if agricultural crops or livestock are targeted. The agents can be produced with minimal equipment. Large facilities are not necessary, as demonstrated by the mobile biological warfare production vehicles that Iraq has evidently had for over ten years.[8]

While 9-11 is the Pearl Harbor or Lusitania, it is the anthrax that may have triggered the belated realization that terrorism truly does need to be attacked and, if possible, eradicated.

What Our Enemies Are Out To Accomplish

This is another subject about which the official U.S. documents are ominously silent. Ominous, because the first rule in war, as described by the ancient Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu[9], is to understand your enemy, especially his strategy. This is important because the primary objective in war is to defeat the enemy’s strategy. If the enemy’s strategy is not understood, how can one wage a successful war? Another prerequisite emphasized by Sun Tzu is to know yourself, especially your weaknesses. There is little evidence of this type of thinking in the National Security Strategy.

There are several enemy objectives clearly evident in the open press. The most dominant objective over the past decade is to expel the infideland his ideas from the Muslim holy lands, which has been defined as everywhere there are Islamic people. This is a major impetus behind the attack on U.S. political, economic, and military symbols. Most evident in the months following 9-11 is Osama bin Laden’s very specific objective: to hit the Americans where it hurts the most – attack the dollar and the American economy.

Although the American economic strength is touted as an advantage in theNational Security Strategy, this advantage has been severely eroded over the past forty years. Even the dollar has lost close to 90 percent of its value since 1960. The loss of industrial base, the trade imbalance, and never-ending growth in debt are disturbing conditions in the eyes of many experts. Even the IMF has expressed its concern about the “hugh U.S. trade deficit.” It would not take much, experts argue, to trigger a depression.

Another more widely based objective is to humble America and its leaders. The American leadership has gone out of its way to antagonize people around the world. Calling for a “distinctly America internationalism” (National Security Strategy) is a good example of what people dislike about the Bush Administration. Questions concerning this U.S. arrogance, as exemplified by the President’s speeches, were raised during President Bush’s (rare) press conference on March 8, 2003.

A clearly expressed objective of the radical Left, brought to my attention two years ago, is to get the United States involved in another Vietnam War. The similarities today and forty years ago in the opening phase of the Vietnam War were also brought up at the President’s March 8 press conference.

Over the past fifty years, the United States’ adversary was mainly (almost exclusively) the Communists because it represented a “rock on the road to progress,” as Nikita Khrushchev explained.[10] As a strategic task in Soviet strategy, the United States had to be brought down because of what it represented and the example it set. To a certain extent, this is also true today. However, the situation today is significantly different from the past because the United States is no longer the shining example it once was. Today, there is a more broader based hatred toward the United States and the attacks being mounted have a new motivation, which is a belief now held by our enemies that the United States has lost so much of its strength and energy that it has become vulnerable. Thus, there is now a justification for attacking the United States directly in an effort to bring about its demise and fall. The Gramscian strategy behind this decline is described below.

The Pleasures And Dangers Of Self-Deception.

“Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence” (GB in NSS)

One of the great dangers that often accompanies a magnified perception of one’s power and influence is an arrogant pride, ethnocentrism, and belief that those in charge are truly The Best and the Brightest, as David Halberstam described those in the Pentagon who were responsible for the Vietnam War. A characteristic statement of this in the National Security Strategy is “China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom [as espoused by the United States] is the only source of that greatness.” (NSS) or, “we live in an age with tremendous opportunities to foster a world consistent with interests and values embraced by the United States…” (NSfCT)

Within this document, there is no appreciation for the possibility that China and other nations may not regard the United States as a shining example but, rather, as a giant that is diseased and about to fall. There is no evident appreciation of growing U.S. weaknesses in theNational Security Strategy. There is no recognition that other people may think very differently and have different values.

Additionally, there is a distorted understanding of international terrorism; a self-serving bias respecting threats, enemies, and friends; and/or tremendous propensity to hide the bad news, such as the anthrax incident implications and who knew what and when just prior to the 9-11 strikes.

President Bush has referred to terrorism as the “gravest danger our Nation faces.” This brings to mind the sub-headlines in USA Today on the President’s State of the Union message. The sub-headline read “Long on Concern, Short on Details,” or, one might say, “Long on Emotion, Short on Substance.”

How many people believe that the terrorist threat is our gravest danger? Is there any substance here or is this just emotional rally-around-the-flag talk? Certainly, the breakdown in morality, the societal regression we face, is extremely serious. Those in financial circles are particularly worried about the debts our country faces and prospects for a depression. Those who have studied the growth of international organized crime, whose revenues now exceed $2 trillion per year, are very concerned about its effect on the “rule of law,” political corruption, and the manipulation of international financial markets.

The Russian nuclear threat, in my view, has never been greater. Unlike our own nuclear modernization programs, which have languished, Russian nuclear missile development, although diminished, has continued over the past decade. Today, thanks to the highly publicized proliferation of warheads and missiles and to advancements in both chemical and biological warfare, Russia today has a critical advantage the Soviet Union lacked – the ability to execute an effective surprise first strike attack that could preclude the need for an unthinkably destructive all-out massive strike. Today, the Russians (Chinese and Cubans too) have the ability to execute covert nuclear and/or biological and/or chemical attacks on the United States even more sophisticated than the anthrax attack that would be politically and economically devastating and do so in such a way that the attacks would be blamed on terrorists!

Another example of a grave danger is narcotics trafficking. While President Bush in his March 8, 2003, press conference recognizing the enormity of the economic damage brought on by 9-11, he did not seem to understand how even more enormous is the damage done by illegal drugs each year. The annual cost of illegal drugs to our nation is over $200 billion a year and the number of deaths according to administration reports was 55,000 in 2001. This exceeds in all respects the annual cost of terrorism to our nation in 2001. The illegal drug plague is equally the result of a direct, premeditated attack on America. In addition to the 55,000 deaths and dollar costs, it also has contributed to the massive erosion of morality among our citizens and is responsible for over 50 percent of new HIV+ cases, the devastation of American families and young men and women by the hundreds of thousands each year, and unavoidable massive corruption of the leadership and institutions (including Federal crime fighting forces) in America brought about by illegal drug money.

Who really poses the greater threat to America: Saddam Hussein or the terrorist-traffickers in Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru?[11]

Numerous political commentators say that by and large, Americans support a war to disarm Saddam and force a regime change in Iraq. This is very misleading with great potential for self-deception. The “support” is not the product of carefully analyzed information. Rather, it is the product of 18 months of war propaganda by the news media, government, and advisors. With very few exceptions, the dominant messages have been the need to go to war. That is the politically correct position and, thus, it is reflected in the opinion polls. The only television program I can remember seeing in which the decision process and driving interests were placed under a microscope was aFrontline special on the impact of neocons in the Defense Department on national policy. Because public opinion is most influenced by the television news specials[12], it is only skin deep and subject to rapid change.

The Great Struggle

Is the “great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality … over” as claimed in theNational Security Strategy, or is this just another Utopian hope? The majority of the world’s people are not free. They still live under Communist and other totalitarian regimes.

One would not know from either the National Security Strategy orNational Strategy for Combating Terrorismthat the Soviet Union is, indeed, the father of international terrorism. They adopted it as a tool for conquest in 1955 and raised it (recruitment, training, organization, sanctuaries, material support, and international networking and coordination) to maturity before the Soviets undertook their “self-destruct” operation in the late-1980s.

In a similar vein, the Communist Chinese gave birth to today’s state-organized international narcotics trafficking, terrorism’s Siamese twin and significant funding mechanism, in 1949. The Soviets followed suit in 1955 and with the help of its surrogate satellites and tens of thousands of recruited and trained indigenous agents in various countries, raised narcotics trafficking and organized crime to become one of the world’s largest businesses, also by the mid-1980s.

According to theNational Security Strategy, “In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states” that shared a number of attributes, including the use of terror, brutality, repression, disdain for international law, rejection of basic human values, seeking weapons of mass destruction and military power to threaten and conquer, and raising the propaganda of hatred of the United States and everything for which it stands. This is “the true nature of this new [terrorist] threat.” This is another gross misrepresentation, in my judgment. This threat was born the day the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917. The Marxist-Leninist regimes that followed there and in China have been the essence of all the above attributes ascribed to the “small number of rogue states.” Nor does the Strategy mention the fact that former Communists dedicated to our overthrow still control Eastern Europe, Russia, and the “former” Republics.[13]

How can we place our trust in those who see the Cold War enemy as “a generally status quo, risk-adverse adversary” (NSS) and the main confrontation as being one of nuclear deterrence? Evidently they do not understand the much larger war that was and still istaking place, a Gramscian war to destroy our institutions and culture from within, while our attention isdeliberatelydistracted by nuclear weapons. (Antonio Gramsci was one of the great Marxist theoreticians of the twentieth century. He reasoned that the developed Western world would not fall of its own weight like a ripe plumb. Rather, it was necessary to infiltrate the culture and national institutions and destroy them from within, especially the Christian basis of Western culture.[14] Only then could the revolution go forward.[15] This same view was also advanced by the second main Marxist theoretician, Georgi Lukacks, who first entered the scene as Minister of Culture in the Bela Kuhn Hungarian revolutionary government of 1918) Evidently our leaders have no understanding of the origins and thrust of international terrorism, narcotics, and organized crime, the origins of which are the strategy devised and promoted by Gramsci and Lukacks in the 1920s and adopted by Khrushchev in Russia in 1955.

Is the United States qualified to lead an international effort to eradicate international terrorism? The idea that “The United States has a long memory and is committed to holding terrorists and those who harbor them accountable for past crimes,” (NSfCT) is a joke. The major sponsors still include China and Russia, a fact that both strategy documents overlook, along with other unmentionables, such as the role of the Saudi royal families in financing terrorists and teaching radical Islam and the contribution of pharmaceutical plants in Holland, former Soviet satellites, and China to the illegal drug plague. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that U.S. intelligence, the CIA, has worked hard since its inception to hide the crimes of Communism – especially its role in spawning today’s international terrorism, international organized crime, and international narcotics trafficking.

Why Just “Break The Nexus”?

Because of the use of illegal drug money by terrorists, “Breaking the nexus between drugs and terror is a key objective in our war on terrorism.” (NSfCT)

Given the close association of terrorism and narcotics trafficking, why not attack both simultaneously rather than just “break the nexus,” which is just another way of giving political protection to the narco-traffickers?Is it because terrorism interrupts “stability” while drug trafficking serves many purposes and contributes mightily to the pockets of the people of power and influence in the New World Order? What is the difference between the transnational financial networks that manage and move money for terrorists and those who provide the service for drug traffickers? What connection is there to break when the two – drugs and terror – are the same?

How will we break the drug-terror connection when there is not even serious interest in fighting a meaningful war on drugs and organized crime? For example, during the Reagan Administration, efforts to curtail the flow of cocaine from Latin America were blocked within the Administration because the cocaine was the primary source of cash that was needed in Latin America to service the debt owed to the large New York banks. As stated by Customs Commissioner William von Raab when he left office in 1989, there was not an anti-drug initiative Customs put forth that was not opposed by the State Department, whom he referred to as the “conscientious objector in the war on drugs.” As for the Justice Department, they could not care less. All they wanted to do was protect their turf. In his review of the Nixon anti-drug efforts, historian Edward Jay Epstein[16] could not find any real interest in the administration in stopping the flow of drugs. The illegal drug issue was only promoted for selfish political interests. Extremely effective efforts by the National Security Agency to stop the flow of illegal drugs through signals intercepts were discontinued for lack of support in the Nixon White House.(See Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America)

International organized crime, whose major component is narcotics trafficking, was one of the fastest growing businesses in the 1990s. The money laundering portion of their revenues was estimated at no less than $900 billion and possibly over $2 trillion two years ago in a U.S. interagency study. Fifteen to twenty percent of this, say $300 billion goes to international banking and related financial institutions as their cut. It should be evident that the trillions of dollars in the pockets of international organized crime and narcotics traffickers buys a horrendous amount of legal, financial, intelligence, and political protection. As stated by a top Europol intelligence official at a conference in Europe four years ago, Europol was almost powerless next to organized crime and narcotics traffickers. Their lawyers, political influence, and technology were all superior to those of Europol. He then expressed his fear that because of their immense financial resources, it would not be long before they controlled the international financial markets. Organized crime is also heavily involved in weapons sales and proliferation, including theft of WMD. More than one professional has acknowledged that the international financial system would crash if deprived of the organized crime and drug trafficking cash flow.

Which is the more serious threat: Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and the other terrorists, or the transnational networks of international organized crime and drug trafficking, in which both Chinese and Russian intelligence are major partners?

Is there any graver threat to the people of the world than narcotics trafficking and organized crime? I don’t think so. Nor do I think there is great sincerity in all the statements promising freedom to peoples around the globe in the National Security Strategy. If there were such concern, why would Saddam Hussein be offered exile without any fears of prosecution for all his crimes against humanity?

We cannot stop terror if we do not attack drug trafficking in a serious, committed way. Drug trafficking was set up to provide support mechanisms to terrorists. Drug trafficking networks have been planned as a major delivery means for chemical and biological terrorist agents and for inserting saboteurs. Terrorism is an integral part of narcotics trafficking. Drug producers, distributors, and dealers are up to their necks in terrorism.

Stopping Efforts To Obtain Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction lies at the heart of the national strategy and counter-terrorist efforts. It is the driving force behind the counter-terrorist components. But, how does one “prevent terrorist groups from gaining access to technology”? How is it humanly possible to stop technological progress so long as you champion free markets, free enterprise, free economies, private property, and the free spread of ideas? (NSS and NSfCT) It isn’t.

How does a bureaucracy recover from decades of neglect? As explained by Robert L. Bartley in “Two Decades of Warning and Now Duct Tape,” the biological and chemical warfare threat was amply evident in the late 1970s. The Wall Street Journal carried a nine-part series on the ultimate nature of the chemical and biological threat in 1984. There was no response then, nor is one evident in the current National Security Strategy. In point of fact, sensitive information on the biological and chemical warfare threat was suppressed within the CIA in 1969 by explicit directions from the White House National Security Advisor to avoid upsetting the arms control negotiations. U.S. intelligence interest in the subject dropped precipitously and has never recovered.

Technology advancements spread vertically and horizontally like wild fire. Post doctoral achievements in chemistry and biology are taught at the undergraduate level three years later. Twenty years ago all the latest equipment for genetic engineering and gene splicing were as widely available in the Middle East as in U.S. graduate schools. The technology for light weight suitcase nuclear weapons of tremendous explosive potential was available by the mid-1950s. Material and electronics to build such devices become easier and more widely available with every passing year.

The proliferation of technology for fission nuclear devices is also simpler today. Weapons grade plutonium or uranium are nice but not necessary. As reported in USA Today (February 27, 2003), there are tons of “non-weapons” grade reactor products that can be used to make nuclear bombs and the technology for refining this material is easier than ever before. Additionally, North Korea and Iran seem to be in the process of making a mockery of the weapons grade nuclear material restrictions of the UN/US non-proliferation policy. There may even be developments that enable a weapon to be constructed in which heavy hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) is burned without either uranium or plutonium, thus implying an ideal size terrorist suitcase bomb that is not illegal as defined by the non-proliferation treaty and that would be almost impossible to detect.

The goal of stopping rogue states from obtaining weapons of mass destruction is rapidly becoming a bankrupt policy, thanks to advances in technology and to profit-motivated industry. This is a serious problem and closing our eyes to the obvious is not a particularly successful way to be effective. This is not to argue that we quit trying, but rather to suggest that we need to do a better job – not by increasing existing efforts but by recognizing their weaknesses and start developing strategies more in tune with the realities of the times in which we live.

Certainly, one of the most important actions is to “understand the intent of the terrorists,” as called for in the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. But, isn’t it even more important to understand their motivations? This has not been easy in the past, especially the motivation part. Is the United States up to this task today? I do not know. Why the focus on “intent” while ignoring “motivation”? Perhaps because the subject of motivation will, of necessity, include the reasons behind the intense hatred toward the United States that is so wide spread. People in the United States who depend on American television and publications would be shocked at the level of anti-Americanism and hatred being expressed overseas.

We cannot compel people to change. Change is an internal and cultural matter. The only peaceful way to affect change is by example; not by words or a “war of ideas.” Unfortunately, the example once represented by the United States no longer exists. The United States no longer reflects the honor and principles of the men so crucial in its founding. It is totally unrealistic to think this change for the worse can be reversed in a few years or even decades. Those who control the reins of power in the United States seem to like it the way it is. This may be one of the reasons why the United States has been one of the major players in abetting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, even to the worst terrorist state of all time, the Soviet Union.

The Question Of Intelligence.

More important than military strength and economic and political influence is intelligence, “our first line of defense.” As demonstrated by the surprise achieved on 9-11, there are serious problems within U.S. intelligence. Because policy drives and constrains intelligence, it is very difficult to assign blame. Is the problem White House influence or intelligence malfeasance? This question always has to be kept in mind. Notwithstanding this, U.S. intelligence has certainly not distinguished itself either in the fight against terrorism over the years or in its ability to recruit spies inside the enemy camp.

Respecting terrorism, the CIA has been more a hindrance than a help – specifically, in its efforts to hide the role of the Soviet Union in sponsoring terrorism and narcotics trafficking.

To gain inside information on the intentions and capabilities of our adversaries, inside sources (spies) are of utmost importance. When U.S. recruited spies were re-evaluated in the wake of the Aldrich Ames case (and with the help of captured East German intelligence files), CIA analysts determined that 100 percent of CIA recruited Cuban and German spies were double agents feeding us information the enemy wanted us to have, and 90 percent of all the recruited spies from Communist countries were likely double agents. On the other hand, unusually good sources, defectors with superb access, were not only trashed but handled in such a way as to discourage other people from seeking to learn what they might know. This was the rule, not the exception. As testified by former CIA director Richard Helms at hearings held on the way defectors were mistreated, their main effort was not to debrief and use defectors but to silence them.

It would also appear, based on information presented by Secretary Powell on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, that U.S. intelligence has not collected much information that is “new” since 1991. This is not a comforting thought. Even worse, U.S. intelligence seem not to have been careful in evaluating information that “said what they wanted to hear.”

How Broad Is The War On Terror And Can It Be Won?

This is a war “between the civilized world and those that would destroy it.” (NSfCT)

“Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.” (GB in NSS)

Can such a war be won? As President Bush explained to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, “We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20^thcentury. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions – by abandoning every value except the will to power – they follow the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. . . all the way, to where it ends: in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.” (GB in NSfCT)

But, this path is not just a 20^th century path. It goes back as far a recorded history. How could any president think he could rid the world of evil?

That is the nature of this world. It will not change. Probably the simplest task we can reasonably undertake is itself very difficult: to resist evil and help others resist evil. This is not a physical battle in which military power, economics or political influence matter very much. Rather, it is a spiritual battle and that is the way it needs to be waged.

The problem with resisting evil is that it requires moral principles of the types set forth by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and discussions that gave birth to these documents. Today’s national policies, both foreign and domestic, are not based on the values and principles upon which America was founded. Rather, they are based on pragmatism and expedience.

Over the past century, those that hold the reins of power in the United States have not resisted the most evil political system in the past century – Communism and especially the Soviet Union – because doing that, or even attempting it, would have interfered with special interests: political and economic interests. Rather than resist evil, they have hidden it, denied its existence, encouraged it, and supported it. Communism would never have grown the way it has without the active and willing assistance of the circles of power in the West, including the United States. Politicians, academicians, and those who finance and influence their behaviors – have hidden the crimes of communism and supported the Communists politically, technologically, and financially.[17]

This is very difficult for most people to believe. How could our leaders not only ignore the crimes of our worst enemies but finance them in their endeavors? Nevertheless, this process is ingrained in U.S. foreign policy and continues as illustrated by our policies toward Russia, Iraq, China and North Korea.

Is it possible to “win,” when our leaders are unable to acknowledge our own complicity in enabling terror, drug trafficking, proliferation, and organized crime to flourish? There is no talk about what the United States has done wrong in the documents under discussion or in any of the speeches of the members of the war cabinet. How can the problem be resolved, other than temporarily, unless the United States’ leaders recognize our faults and work to change our own practices that have, in part, enabled rogue states to grow into monsters?

Is The War On Terrorism In Trouble?

The war on Al-Qaeda and its supporters should continue until all those responsible have been brought to justice, one way or another. There are other forces directly attacking the United States and those also need to be brought to justice. Other actions in which our help is needed to assist as appropriate other nations in their quest to eradicate terror should be undertaken. There are, as has been said, also numerous U.S. policies that are in serious need of attention and attending to these needs is every bit as important as “action.”

Because the war on terrorism is so difficult and will take so long, as recognized in the various documents, great care is required to keep it on track. Should that war become subverted, used to serve other interests, or hypocritical – that is, when values and principles become replace by the usual pragmatism and expediency – the war will turn against us.

This is the risk associated with the manner in which the desire to attack Iraq has proceeded. It has not been connected to the war on terrorism. The threat it poses is in no sense clear as was the threat from Al-Qaeda. If Iraq, then why not Syria, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China? Where does it end?

Alternatives

There are many options to pursue, all far less risky and far less costly than war. At issue is not the credibility of the UN. The issue is whether the “threat” justifies the tremendous risk and potential loss of lives. In the absence of such justification, which we can now assume is not about to come, the issue becomes one of alternatives, and alternatives do exist. There is far more reason to conclude that the threat is not imminent and could be delayed while pressure is increased, with prospects to resolve the dispute, than there is reason to invade Iraq as the next step in the war on terrorism.

It is never too late to replace emotionality with rationality. If there is not support for an invasion of Iraq at least as strong as the support for the war on the Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, there is no basis for attacking Iraq.

The proponents of war pound the podium and say that Saddam has already had 12 years to disarm and that is enough. This argument is vacuous and strictly emotions without any close scrutiny. Saddam has had 12 years to do nothing because there has been no external pressure. If nothing was accomplished in the 12 years it is only because those most capable of applying pressure, such as the United States, did nothing themselves. Saddam merely followed that lead and did nothing. Those 12 years cannot be compared with today. Even now it has taken several months to ratchet up the pressure, and some results now appear to be showing. But what has been done is only a minor start, almost designed until the past few weeks to encourage Saddam to do nothing. There are many alternatives short of war that could be used to resolve the impasse, one way or the other.

The UN inspections could be expanded (more people) and more focused through intelligence-sharing (assuming there is restricted information of significant interest). It is unlikely that Saddam can take any serious aggressive action while inspections are going on.

The inspections could be changed so that Saddam would not have advance notice enabling him to move restricted equipment – or do people really not want to surface this issue because of what it says about the integrity and reliability of the UN and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) personnel?

If there are mobile biological warfare laboratories in Iraq, such as Secretary Powell said was the case, why cannot these be detected, stopped, and inspected? If U.S. intelligence knows they are there, it would seem they should be capable of finding them and alerting the inspection team to their presence and location – or is U.S. intelligence just recycling 1989 intelligence?

The development of weapons of mass destruction depends on money. Given the fact that freezing the financial resources of terrorists is an integral part of the U.S. war on terrorism, there should already be a major effort to identify and freeze all of Saddam’s financial resources. So, where does he still get his money if he is such a big threat? Why has the United States only frozen a paltry $100 million plus worth of terrorist assets. If Saddam is a terrorist, why have not his billions in various bank accounts been frozen, and those of his sons, other Iraqi leaders, and terrorist leaders of other countries as well, or would this ruffle the tail feathers of the New World Order circles of financial power. By all accounts, this financial dimension of the war on terrorism that President Bush has stressed over and over is no more relevant that the UN.

Complaints have been made respecting the illegal sale of oil and receipt of oil revenues by Hussein. This is an open secret, as shown on television news specials. Why has the UN allowed it to continue, and why has the United States not pushed for a resolution to stop the illegal oil shipments?

To guard against fears that Saddam will pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, another action, expensive but certainly cheaper than war, is to seal the border and not let anything in or out, including by air, that is not first approved by UN inspectors. Expensive? Yes. Intrusive? Certainly. A slap in the face of New World Order free trade and open borders, of course, but only a minor irritant when compared with the prospects of war.

There is something very deficient in the thinking in Washington if their own option for bringing an individual such as Saddam Hussein to justice is a massive war whose cost will exceed several hundred billion dollars and who knows how many lives.

If there is a real serious concern that Saddam might “decide to lob a weapon of mass destruction on Israel,” as President Bush put forth as one reason for going forth with the war in his March 8 press conference, then how can the United States even risk starting a war without enough troops to completely seal off Iraq and immediately occupy all its territory from which a SCUD missile or drone could be launched within hours of the first air assault?

Is there intelligence to support President Bush’s rhetoric, or is it just more emotionalism devoid of detail? If there are details, the UN inspections should be intensified to constitute such a sealing of borders and thorough reconnaissance of the territory from which an attack could be launched.

This is just a beginning list of alternatives to war that could be greatly expanded if we think creatively. If we force our thinking to go outside the old boxes of sanctions and war there is no telling what might be accomplished. There may be many ways of disciplining “bad boys” that would be short of war.

Isn’t it time to break out of the past and learn some more positive approaches? War very rarely solves problems and the people it hurts the most never wanted war in the first place.

Endnotes