Unconquerable Nation: CH 2 An Appreciation of the Situation

In mid-2006, nearly five years after 9/11, how is America doing in the global war on terror? The question itself reflects the typically American desire to keep score, to measure progress. Fighting in World War II provided visible mileposts—the invasion of North Africa, the march through Italy, the return to the Philippines, the landing at Normandy, the liberation of Paris, the fall of Berlin, VE Day, VJ Day. It was a bloodier contest, but one in which we knew where we were going. The Cold War that followed lasted decades, and the current contest could easily do the same. The Iron Curtain came down in 1946, and the Berlin Wall remained in place until 1989. The intervening 43 years saw many ups and downs, with the ultimate outcome uncertain to the very end. It is against the anticipation of decades of conflict that we review the progress of the past five years in the global war on terror.

Although the war on terror has become the second longest war fought by the United States, there have been few decisive battles or turning points to mark its course. This is the nature of insurgencies and terrorist campaigns. Since 9/11, the few mileposts that we can point to include the defeat of the Taliban in late 2001; the resurgence of jihadist terrorism in 2002 and 2003 with the attacks in Bali, Mombasa, Riyadh, and Casa Blanca; the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the swift march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003; and the extension of jihadist operations into Europe in 2004 and 2005 with the attacks in Madrid and London, concurrent with the escalation of the insurgency in Iraq.

However, this list suggests more order than actually existed. The reality was one of uncertain beginnings, unconnected opportunistic terrorist attacks rather than terrorist campaigns, a U.S. invasion that many considered to be a dangerous distraction from the more critical task of destroying al Qaeda, a ferocious but diffuse armed resistance in Iraq rather than a centrally directed insurgency, and much trumpeted American military offensives that had inspiring names but little permanent effect.

Deaths of American soldiers in Iraq have occurred at much lower levels than in previous wars, but the lack of unarguable results in the U.S.-led campaign has been especially frustrating to a nation of pragmatists. In 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself lamented the difficulty of measuring progress when he said, “Today we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us?” Three years later, questions are still on the table. Are we winning or losing? Should we get out of Iraq as soon as we can, or should we stay the course? Are we any safer today than we were on that fateful day in September 2001? Or are we in even greater danger?

The absence of clear indicators leads Americans to look for things to count, regardless of their relevancy. Some measure the country’s own inputs—for example, how much it is spending on security—and label increases as progress. Public officials rely on spin to convey progress. For different reasons, our political leaders and military commanders continuously claim that we are making progress, that we are winning, that the enemy is desperate and on the run, that the insurgency is in its death throes, that our victory is inevitable. And inevitably, official credibility is eroded as the bloodshed continues. Only since late 2005 have more sober expressions of the uncertainties we face, admissions of setbacks, and warnings of more deaths to come surfaced in the public remarks of those in charge.

Assessments of progress depend on how this new war is defined. According to one definition, it is a campaign to destroy the jihadist terrorist enterprise led by al Qaeda and its affiliates. Yet it has become inextricably intertwined with the struggle to suppress an insurgency in Iraq and a resurgent armed resistance in Afghanistan. The war on terror is also described as an effort to defeat other terrorist organizations that have American blood on their hands or that might threaten the United States or its allies. It is a decades-old effort to combat terrorism as a mode of conflict. It has become conflated with efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on the presumption that their development by states such as Iraq, Iran, or North Korea will lead inevitably to their acquisition by terrorists. And, finally, the war is described by some as an effort to secure the American homeland itself.

Measuring progress in each of these endeavors is difficult enough, let alone assessing progress in the aggregate. This is hardly a new situation. The four decades of the Cold War were marked by dramatic events, setbacks and triumphs, confrontations and détente, worries about widening missile gaps and windows of vulnerability, deployments of new weapons and wars fought by proxies. But could we at any moment say where we were in the struggle, whether we were safer or less secure, or how much longer it would continue?

Only three months after September 11, 2001, I was asked in a Senate hearing whether “it was over,” since no further terrorist attacks had occurred. The question was premature. It is still premature, but now, nearly five years after the 9/11 attacks, it is possible to attempt what army staff officers once called “an appreciation of the situation.” It is still early, the situation is immensely complicated, and the outcome is not yet clear, but through the smoke and fog of war, some things are discernible.

The assessment must start with the jihadists who, inspired by al Qaeda’s ideology, remain the principal terrorist threat to the United States. Al Qaeda’s brand of jihadism seeks to transform Islam’s discontents into a muscular religious offensive that elevates the concept of jihad from a struggle within one’s soul to an unlimited war against the West. Jihadism is a radical cult of violence that draws on a rich anthology of religious theory to support its position and has its own operational code, which we will discuss later. Jihadism is not synonymous with Islam, but its rhetoric and actions do appeal to a broader Islamic community. Contemporary jihadism differs from previous jihads. The shared experience of combat in Afghanistan, a vast population of Muslim immigrants, and new means of communication especially the Internet—have combined to create a global consciousness and produce a truly global enterprise. Al Qaeda has helped to create this, but the jihadist phenomenon transcends al Qaeda.

Early Progress Against al Qaeda: The United States and its allies have made undeniable progress in degrading the operational capabilities of the jihadist terrorist enterprise, most significantly by overthrowing the Taliban and eliminating al Qaeda’s readily accessible training camps in Afghanistan. The Taliban were vulnerable. As al Qaeda’s number two leader, Ayman al- Zawahiri, wrote four years after their defeat, the Taliban had, by their extreme actions, separated themselves from the people and were isolated, both domestically and internationally.

Overthrow of the Taliban The swift campaign to take the Taliban down was imaginative and unorthodox. A conventional U.S. invasion of Afghanistan would have required months of buildup and potentially could have condemned American forces to repeat the disastrous Soviet experience. Instead, backed by U.S. airpower and coordinated by Special Forces and intelligence operatives, the Taliban’s fiercest Afghan enemies, animated by tribal vendettas and cash, were recruited to fight on the ground. This had a subtle, perhaps unanticipated yet salutary effect. Faced with an American onslaught, Taliban fighters could easily have retreated and gone to ground to wage a protracted guerrilla war; but when confronted by other Afghans, their own warrior traditions and fear that retreat would be interpreted by their peers as the loss of God’s support encouraged them to stand and fight, with devastating consequences. City after city fell. In contrast to the Taliban fighters, the al Qaeda jihadists could and did run. Doubtless already anticipating a ferocious response to the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda had its escape plans in place, and its cadres cleared out and headed to the mountains.

Destruction of Training Camps Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan were a critical component of the jihadists’ enterprise, although the actual training that went on in them was not their most important function. Instruction in clandestine operations, terrorist tactics, weapons skills, and bomb-making can be provided in almost any cellar or remote farm; basic knowledge can even be imparted on the Internet, although hands-on experience helps enormously. Indoctrination was an especially important function of the camps. Isolated from all other sources of information, recruits consumed an exclusive diet of al Qaeda’s ideology.

Training in Afghanistan became a magnet for eager jihadists from all over the world, an international jamboree where one could graduate from words to action. Getting there was in itself many acolytes’ first step into the underground, since it required leaving behind family, studies, and jobs. Moreover, it often required traveling under a fake name, with false papers. Making the pilgrimage to Afghanistan tested commitment.

Living together with jihadist recruits from every corner of the world, sharing hardships and danger, provided an important bonding experience. Camps were subdivided along national lines, but even with houses of different flags, the idea of jihad as a global campaign rather than a collection of national efforts was reinforced. Nationalities were mixed in advanced al Qaeda training, and the personal bonds established there created powerful, lasting ties that will survive for decades. Al Qaeda still draws on this human capital of veterans and recruiters, as well as underground networks to move people.

The fighting in Afghanistan also provided an opportunity for actual combat. Seasoned Afghan guerrillas may have thought little of the foreign volunteers, and there are reports that the less-promising students were sent to the front as cannon fodder, but the fighting, although desultory, was real. The result had less to do with battlefield learning than with gaining experience under fire, experiencing the exposure to danger and death, the suppression of sensitivities, the hardening of attitudes—what in a less-squeamish age used to be called “blooding” the troops.

The camps also supported al Qaeda’s strategy of building relationships with other groups in the jihadist constellation. Al Qaeda could connect the groups with a worldwide struggle and could raise their technical capabilities. Distant organizations from Southeast Asia to North Africa sent men to train in Afghanistan. Some of them were inducted directly into al Qaeda’s fold, giving them a kind of dual citizenship. However, pledging loyalty to bin Laden did not mean giving up membership in one’s original organization. It is this dual loyalty to bin Laden and to their home-based organizations that made al Qaeda a truly international organization. Some trainees returned with sets of connections that could provide them with continuing financial aid or technical assistance. These same connections would benefit al Qaeda, by extending its recruiting and operational reach.

The camps provided a continuing flow of volunteers from which al Qaeda’s planners could recruit operatives. This global reservoir enabled the planners to assemble specialized combinations of talent, including candidates suitable for pilot training who also were willing to carry out suicide missions. By putting dispersed talent and centralized operational planners together, the camps enabled al Qaeda to operate at a level far above that of previous terrorist organizations.

While destroying the camps imposed some limitations on the jihadist enterprise, it did not end recruitment, training, or the preparation of terrorist operations. These activities continue in dispersed fashion, at local sites and at remote locations in Pakistan and the southern Philippines, but the distant camps are not as easily accessible, the journey is more dangerous, and the entire process is far less efficient. And while the Internet can provide basic instruction in terrorist tactics and bomb-making, it cannot entirely replace hands-on experience, nor can it duplicate the shared sense of cause, hardships, and danger that produce the strong bonds of brotherhood. And yet,the 7/7 London bombers were still able to create a suicide pact built upon local bonding.

Subsequent Indicators of Progress?: Captives and Casualties The total number of jihadist operatives detained worldwide is not a significant indicator of progress. Published reports indicate that several thousand al Qaeda combatants have been killed or captured, and about 1,000 remain in U.S. custody.10 These numbers do not include all the Taliban combatants captured in Afghanistan or the insurgents in Iraq, about 14,000 of whom are in U.S. custody. Only a small portion of the Iraqi insurgents are members of al Qaeda.

Whether these losses are significant depends on how many al Qaeda combatants we think there are, and again, much depends on definition. Reports of al Qaeda job application forms, salaries, and benefit packages describe a level of al Qaeda organization that no longer exists—indeed, they imply more organization than there ever was. Recent estimates of al Qaeda’s core strength run between 300 and 500. An uncertain figure to begin with, it is even more uncertain now. Estimates of “associate membership,” a term that again implies more formality than exists in reality, or some form of looser association run in the low tens of thousands. The total number of recruits that have passed through al Qaeda’s training camps at one time or another is estimated to be between 70,000 and 120,000, but not all of these joined al Qaeda, and fewer still remain al Qaeda operatives. In addition, these figures would not include the total membership of all of al Qaeda’s allies, those recruited by al Qaeda affiliates since 2001, or autonomous cells that emerged to carry out terrorist attacks such as the 2005 bombings in London but were never identified as al Qaeda members and did not pass through the training camps in Afghanistan. However, some may have received training after 2001 in Pakistan. And beyond these lie vast pools of fired-up young men in radical Islamic organizations, mosques, and madrassas.

The overall picture that emerges is one of thousands of determined individuals with very slender connections. Moreover, this is a dynamic population. Recruiting is constant. At the same time, terrorist losses are continuous. Some of those who went through the training camps claim to have decided right away that al Qaeda’s brand of jihad was not for them. Others have undoubtedly dropped out in the years since they attended training. Still others have been killed or captured.

Jihadists also vary in their level of commitment. Some are willing to serve as martyrs, while others choose only to provide passive support. Individual jihadists are constantly calibrating and recalibrating their level of commitment, depending on their perception of events and their personal circumstances.

Access to a global reservoir provided quantity, which al Qaeda translated into quality, but large numbers are not needed to carry out terrorist operations. Al Qaeda is a tiny army. Even the 9/11 attacks were carried out by only 19 men with perhaps an equally small number of supporters outside the country. Major attacks since 9/11 have involved only handfuls of terrorists. This war cannot be won by attrition.

In contrast, al Qaeda’s key operational planners are hard to replace. Experience counts. With fewer central planners, there will be less learning, fewer innovations, fewer operational refinements. Continued pressure on the enterprise, keeping its leaders on the run, and impeding internal communications have all degraded al Qaeda’s operational capabilities.

Thwarted Attacks: Increased intelligence efforts and unprecedented cooperation among the world’s security services have no doubt thwarted some terrorist attacks. British authorities say they have foiled eight to ten plots, and President Bush said in a speech in 2006 that ten terrorist attacks had been prevented, including several in the United States.

It is always hard to count things that don’t occur. One cannot say exactly how many terrorist attacks would have taken place if authorities had not intervened. Jihadists continually reconnoiter targets on the street and on the Internet. When they are not actually preparing or carrying out operations, terrorists constantly talk about what they could do, what they dream of doing. Plans pile up. Proposals are constantly being pitched. An operation in the planning stages is likely to have several iterations. It may be shelved and later renewed. Much of this is psychologically fulfilling fantasy—a kind of virtual jihad.

In interrogations, captured terrorists may reveal some plans, talk about invented plots to mislead their captors, or boast of grandiose schemes to impress and frighten an eager audience. Does the arrest of a key figure mean that one or ten future attacks were prevented? Does a captured target folder mean that one or multiple operations were thwarted?

Authorities worldwide have adopted a more aggressive posture, moving in earlier to break up potential plots rather than waiting until they mature or, worse, are carried out. Moving in earlier means suspects may be apprehended while their plans are still in the talking stage. In some cases, authorities may make the arrests simply to disrupt suspected preparations for terrorist operations without having precise information on exactly what was being planned. While this may prevent a planned attack, it also makes prosecution difficult, as suspects can claim that they were only talking and never had serious intentions.

As a consequence, the number of prosecutions is small compared with the number of people detained, which reflects a preventive law enforcement approach rather than the traditional reactive approach. It is sufficient to say that the operational capabilities of the jihadists have been degraded and that terrorist operations are being thwarted. Keeping score is difficult and irrelevant.

Disrupted Funding: We also have disrupted al Qaeda’s cash flow. The jihadist enterprise is supported by sympathetic contributors identified during the war in Afghanistan, cooperative charities, and, according to some observers, frightened Gulf states seeking immunity from terrorist attack. This funding has in the past enabled al Qaeda to support a global network of paid operatives, finance terrorist operations, and purchase influence through financial aid to other organizations.

But while authorities can estimate how much funding has been blocked it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars—there is considerable uncertainty about how much money may still be getting through. No doubt it is less, but a downsized al Qaeda core and a more decentralized organization also have reduced al Qaeda’s financial needs.

The total amounts of suspected terrorist funding being blocked by the authorities have declined each year since 2001. This could suggest various things: success at drying up the jihadists’ revenue streams, more skillful evasion of financial controls by jihadist bankers, or declining needs. Nevertheless, occasional reports do suggest that al Qaeda is short of funds.

Unfortunately, terrorist attacks do not usually require large financial resources. The 9/11 attacks did cost an estimated half million dollars, including expenses for travel, support, and flight training, and involved large bank transfers. However, four truck bombings in Turkey cost $170,000—only $42,000 each. The 2004 Madrid bombings cost no more than $15,000. The 2005 London bombing cost a mere $2,000.

The declining scale of the attacks represents progress. But as large-scale financial transactions have become more dangerous, terrorists have adapted their financing, making use of informal banking networks to transfer smaller sums. Eager jihadists must now provide their own funding, which they do through petty crime or even from their own resources.

Although not an entirely new phenomenon—Ahmed Ressam, the would-be millennium bomber, for example, funded his activity in the 1990s by small robberies in Montreal—this intersection between low-level crime and terrorism has become a signature feature of today’s more-decentralized jihadist operations. In 2006, police investigating a series of gas station holdups in Southern California stumbled upon a prison-based jihadist plot to attack religious and military sites.

International Cooperation: Although the United States has led the charge in the war on terror, at times stiff-arming its traditional allies to pursue its own course, embarrassing them with its swaggering rhetoric and high-handed demands, and berating them publicly when they have chosen not to come along, international cooperation has remained strong. Cooperation among intelligence services is unprecedented in terms of the number of countries involved and the speed with which information is exchanged. Allied forces operate alongside American forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. This has made the operating environment extremely hostile for jihadists worldwide.

Another achievement, accomplished early in the war, was persuading Pakistan to abandon its support for the Taliban and become an ally in the campaign against al Qaeda. Complaints continue about the undemocratic nature of Pakistan’s government and the quality of its cooperation, but a hostile government in Islamabad would have seriously complicated efforts against the jihadists.

Other countries, portions of whose populations were sympathetic to al Qaeda and whose governments might have preferred to adopt a more passive stance in the global campaign against the jihadists, were jolted to action by subsequent terrorist attacks on their territory. Attacks in Indonesia, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and, above all, Saudi Arabia—a stronghold of jihadist sympathies—demonstrated the jihadists’ readiness to kill fellow Muslims and justify the murders by denouncing the victims as apostates or dismissing them as collateral casualties who would be compensated in paradise. The carnage eroded al Qaeda’s popularity and galvanized governments that were determined to crush the challenge to their own survival, even if it meant closer cooperation with infidels. Each terrorist attack provoked a massive crackdown that reduced the jihadists’ capabilities for further operations.

No Terrorist Attacks in the United States: For Americans, the most important measure of success has been the absence of another major terrorist attack in the United States. Clearly, al Qaeda remains determined to strike again. Bin Laden has said so. While another attack on the scale of 9/11 cannot be ruled out entirely, there is growing consensus among analysts that such an attack in the United States is not likely. What is more difficult to explain is the absence of smaller-scale attacks in this country.

It is true that al Qaeda’s operational capabilities have been reduced, Western intelligence has improved, security in the United States is tighter, and a few local plots have been thwarted in the early stages. But better intelligence and security cannot be the entire explanation. Since 2001, jihadists in other parts of the world have attacked residences, restaurants, hotel lobbies, nightclubs, commuter trains, subways, churches, synagogues, and crowded city streets. The same targets are vulnerable in the United States.

In his January 2006 message, Osama bin Laden stated that America’s security measures have not prevented terrorist attacks. Jihadists do not want simply another attack, they want another truly spectacular blow, and they have long time horizons. Planning for the 9/11 attacks began in the mid-1990s. Bin Laden promises that there will be a new attack, but he characteristically offers no time frame.

Other explanations for the absence of attacks in the United States are also possible. Jihadist planners might worry that smaller terrorist attacks will provoke even tighter security, making it more difficult for them to prepare another major assault. Their own operational code tells them to lie in wait, to attack when the enemy is inattentive. Or they might be concerned that a major attack on American soil would only infuriate Americans and harden their resolve at a time when jihadists want to sap the country’s determination to remain in Iraq. These explanations suggest central decisionmaking and a continuing measure of influence over local volunteers, or at least a shared understanding of strategy.

It is also possible that local communities are exercising some degree of control, encouraging neighborhood hotheads to fulfill their desire for action abroad, not at home where it would complicate everyone’s life. Or it could just be a matter of luck. The absence of attacks in the homeland is a success that we cannot entirely explain.

We didn't win WW2, because when it was over China was overrun by a repressive communist regime, and Eastern Europe was occupied by a repressive soviet communist regime. About all we saved were a few countries along the edge. We couldn't even get Israel right, they got a country but almost immediately they were at war, and they still are, with their neighbors.

It's like we are still fighting world war 2. Then there's Korea, we started THAT war in 1950 and it's still going. Vietnam is over ONLY because we surrendered, or else I bet they'd still be split in 2.

The 1st gulf war never really ENDED, we had 12 years of violations and threats and shots at our airplanes and then we had to go in again and we're still stuck.

Somalia "ended" because we lost, Lebanon didn't end even when we pulled out, and we are still going in Serbia.

So "winning" wars isn't really the norm for us, in the sense people want us to win. We WON THE WAR IN IRAQ ALREADY, Saddam is gone, a new regime is in place that isn't looking to kill us or sell oil to fund terrorists.

But the war didn't end.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.