War College Blasts War on Terrorism

Miakal

credit: yahoo

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sa_report_dc_1

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq (news - web sites) invasion was "an unnecessary preventive war of choice" that has robbed resources and attention from the more critical fight against al Qaeda in a hopeless U.S. quest for absolute security, according to a study recently published by the U.S. Army War College.

The 56-page document written by Jeffrey Record, a veteran defense expert who serves as a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, represents a blistering assessment of what President Bush calls the U.S. global war on terrorism.

Pentagon officials on Monday said Record was entitled to his opinion, but reiterated Bush's view that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism.

Record urged U.S. leaders to refocus Bush's broad war to target Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, and its allies. Record said the Iraq war was a detour from real anti-terrorism efforts.

Record criticized the Bush administration for lumping together al Qaeda and President Saddam Hussein's Iraq "as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat."


"This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action," Record wrote.


"The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda," Record wrote.

Faculty at the Army War College, an academic institute run by the Army since 1901, produce analyzes of military and national security issues, with scholars encouraged to take a critical look a existing policies.

Lawrence Di Rita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said, "There's no question he's entitled to his views."

"People are publishing stuff all the time. That's the value of kind of having people throw analysis out there. You learn even from analysis you don't agree with. I don't even want to characterize it as something I don't agree with because I just haven't read it," said Di Rita, adding that he does not know if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to read the document.

GRATUITOUS CONFLICT

Record faulted the administration for fusing disparate enemies such as rogue states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction proliferators into a monolithic threat.

In doing so, he said, the administration "may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."

Record said the administration's declared goals "are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security," as well as being fiscally, politically and militarily unsustainable.

These goals include destroying al Qaeda and other such transnational groups, making Iraq a stable democracy, bringing democracy to the rest of the autocratic Middle East, ending terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to real and potential enemies, Record said.

In an interview, Record took issue with the very concept of a war on terrorism.

"Terrorism is a common noun. It's a technique. How do you make war on terrorism as opposed to specific terrorist organizations?" Record asked.


"I don't think that it is within America's power to rid the world of terrorism. ... The idea that you're going to be able to expunge this form of warfare from the world, I think, is really stretching it."

Douglas Lovelace, head of the Strategic Studies Institute in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where Record works, said the report "should enter into the debate or at least be considered by those who are formulating strategy and policy."

Bouchie

Oh man, that was a good read! Couldn't put it down...

DMW

I agree and disagree with that report. I agree that Iraq has somewhat side tracked the true war on terrorism, although not entirely. We all assume that Saddam wasn't masterminding terrorist attacks, but his connections with Hammas alone make him part of the world of terrorism.

I disagree with the way this article implies that the war on terrorism is a war that can't be won, and therefore we are wrong to even try. They are probably right in that the world be never be trully rid of terrorism in our lifetime, but it's absolutely necessary to continuely fight rather than sitting back waiting for another attack.

Absolute security may be unattainable, be shouldn't our government be fighting daily to get us, as a nation, as close as we can to that kind of security?

Miakal

How can you say that the war on terrorism can be won? Even Bush himself (which was right of him to do) has said that it's not the traditional war. It's not like World War II (and I'm not trying to talk down to you, DMW, just pointing something out) where there are specific things we can do and there is a time where it will be over with.

We don't get troops set up and have them fight something and win. You can't defeat terror that way.

I agree, part of this article is making an odd claim that the United States shouldn't really bother. But I think that what they are truly are saying is that it's not something we can win in ten, twenty, or thirty years...it's something that's going to always be around in one form or another. It only takes one person to enter America and blow something up, cause harm to others, or just pose a threat which makes us feel unsafe for their to be "terror". It's unrealistic to think that waging war on everything is going to give birth to winning the war. Obviously, though, we can do things which will limit the amount of damage terrorist organizations can do. These things, however, should be carefully looked at and it would certainly help to have it a global problem rather than an American one.

DMW

I never claimed that this was a war that could truly be "won," I was just arguing that in contradiction to the article's connotation, it's a war worth fighting for the sake of limiting the capabilities of terrorists as much as we can. I even said that the people who wrote this were probably right in saying that we will never be completely rid of terrorism, at least in our lifetimes.[/b]