Winning The War on Terror by Rebranding It

President Bush’s War on Terror may be passé, but the U.S. occupation and involvement in the Middle East is far from over and will probably last a long time.

Ret. Gen. John Abizaid, the longest serving commander of U.S. Central Command, and David Ignatius, op-ed writer for The Washington Post, met at the Panetta Institute lecture series on June 8 in what can best be described as an optimistic love fest. Although differing slightly in emphasis, the two were optimistic about the U.S. prevailing in a fight “for the soul of the Islamic world.”

Additionally, the U.S. faces a variety of security issues, including: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a failing state in Pakistan; North Korea building a nuclear arsenal; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and a resurgent, nuclear-armed Iran.

Military power is necessary in these conflicts but not sufficient. The war “won’t be lost or won by us,” but we “must stay in the fight.” The Middle East can only win with our help, but the problems are not solely military. Solutions include a comprehensive approach with a full range of national and international power that uses “diplomacy, economic activity, intelligence capabilities, and information campaigns that make sense.” The U.S. has to place reliance on local and regional people and turn the fighting over to indigenous forces.

These two men have spent years studying, traveling and engaged in politics in the Middle East and they draw on a wealth of success stories and warnings. Abizaid said there is “no question that we have to help” countries democratize, promote “openness” and make governments more representative. We’re engaged in a battle over ideology, which is “not a battle between civilizations, but over globalization.”

At the same time, Abizaid was critical of Bush’s torture policies. Although he doesn’t know “for sure” whether torture extorted valuable intelligence, the military “should not screw with the Geneva Conventions.” When the enemy is “in custody, we have a lawful obligation to protect them.” He refuses to criticize presidential mistakes, but “it’s important for us to keep our values” that we “cannot stray from.” He admired the expertise of the pre-WWII German Army, but as soon as they “adopted the evil standards of the regime,” they lost their honor, an essential element in the military.

Abizaid suggested the Bush regime was an exception in U.S. history, and now we must return to being “a good partner in the international community.” Our nation has experienced “a period of military, economic and political dominance” that has ended. “The U.S. will have to share power in a more competitive world with reduced resources,” said Abizaid. “It’s important that we adjust and we have been able to in the past.”

The U.S. is not an enemy of Islam, according to Ignatius, who understands their “resistance to openness that is part of modern life.” Much of the Arab world has retreated into traditional religions and values, just as American fundamentalists have. They seek to close out the world and resist “contaminating foreign influences.” Their religion is “being perverted by extremists,” but Muslims will be able to adapt and adjust to change; it is a process. Rather than speaking of a war on terrorism, we would benefit by separating the two wars “into discrete conflicts with specific goals.” Then we could claim victory and bring the troops home. “Our language has not done a good job on salesmanship,” said Ignatius.

Events move faster than the conversation. After being elected on an anti-war platform, Obama still has 140,000 troops in Iraq and 55,000 troops in Afghanistan. He increased the use of mercenaries in the two countries by about a quarter, to 250,000. Iraq has arrested 1,000 officials on corruption, and a June report by Congress found rampant corruption in the billions of U.S funds spent there. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen what Obama will due to curb a military budget that Bush increased by 71 percent.

Abizaid and Ignatius want more resources from the State Department and even entrepreneurs to win this ideological battle. They bemoan the fact that Americans don’t read newspapers and aren’t supportive of the U.S. role in the conflicts. We are prone to wanting quick solutions to military expeditions and bringing the troops home.

Neither man questioned the role of the U.S. in the world or criticized Bush’s blundering in Iraq and Afghanistan: Abizaid wouldn’t criticize a president and Ignatius only found that Bush didn’t articulate U.S. goals well enough. Neither of them examined the fact that globalization is about U.S. banking and corporate control of other countries and markets and both clothe their assertions in “helping” other countries.

Traditionally, the American people have not supported U.S. colonies or hopeless militaray adventures. Americans were lied to and suckered into the invasion of Iraq, which continues to enrich oil conglomerates and the arms industry. Something is terribly wrong with a democracy that spends 42 percent of the world’s military budget. After eight years of war, these two spin masters can only ask for more resources, more support and an eventual “victory” somewhere in the remote future.

The End