Rand: Solution to Terrorism Is Not Military (by Ryan Rodrick Beiler)
Some compelling quotes from a recent Rand Corp. study caught my eye in today's Washington Post -- the emphasis is added:
The Bush administration's terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda's capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies.
The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a "war on terrorism." The phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said.
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors," authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write.
I was immediately reminded that the law enforcement approach was a position Jim Wallis took in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 -- long before the Bush administration's failures had created the political space for such concepts to be found in mainstream media. Jim wrote (emphasis added):
I’ve advocated the mobilization of the most extensive international and diplomatic pressure the world has ever seen against bin Laden and his networks of terror—focusing the world’s political will, intelligence, security, legal action, and police enforcement against terrorism. The international community must dry up the terrorists’ financial networks, isolate them politically, discredit them before an international tribunal, and expose the ugly brutality behind their terror. ...
I am increasingly convinced that the way forward may be found in the wisdom gained in the practice of conflict resolution and the energy of a faith-based commitment to peacemaking. For example, most nonviolence advocates, even pacifists, support the role of police in protecting people in their neighborhoods. Perhaps it is time to explore a theology for global police forces, including ethics for the use of internationally sanctioned enforcement—precisely as an alternative to war.
An I-told-you-so attitude is unseemly when it comes to the thousands upon thousands of lives lost in this conflict -- and not just those of U.S. forces and those killed by U.S. forces, but also those killed by continued terrorist attacks. Here's a sobering fact from the Rand study:
Addressing the U.S. campaign against al-Qaeda, the study noted successes in disrupting terrorist financing, but said the group remains a formidable foe. Al-Qaeda is "strong and competent," and has succeeded in carrying out more violent attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than in all of its previous history.
The point is not to say "I told you so," but to continue to press for a smarter and more effective response to the very real threat of terror. Now that groups with such Beltway insider credibility as Rand are on record, perhaps future administrations can pursue such strategies with new courage.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners.






Add to Newsvine




Comments
"War is Terrorism with a bigger budget."
"War is always the answer, that's why today there are no more wars."
Posted by: Quetzal | July 30, 2008 7:42 PM
All I know is that before it became a "war on terror" al quaida struck the US at will. Since it has become a war on terror, they haven't pulled off any major successful operations against the United States.
Rand can have it's study. I'll go with the results thank you very much
Posted by: John Lunt | July 31, 2008 7:15 AM
Other than killing 4,000+ US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. So much for results.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 31, 2008 8:07 AM
Administration apologists are constantly reminding us that we haven't had an attack by foreign terrorists on US soil since 9-11-2001—a period of 7 years. Apparently they want us to forget that we previously went 8 years without an attack under Bill Clinton. Not that I am a FOB (friend of Bill, for those with short memories), but I fail to see how Conservative Republicans could justify criticism of Clinton on such things as "trying to start a war" to distract from impeachment proceedings based on such vital national security matters as sex in the White House, only to support a President that started a real war by stoking false fears and then proceeded to trash the Constitution to make us more "secure".
Meanwhile, how much do we know about Rand and the kind of advice that their deep thinkers have provided our government in the past?
http://www.hereinreality.com/news/rand.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=RAND_Corporation
http://www.alternet.org/audits/83910/
Posted by: Hermes | July 31, 2008 8:25 AM
Other than killing 4,000+ US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Not to mention uncounted thousands of Iraqi and Afghani non-combatant civilians. Or the creation of untold thousands of refugees. Or the environmental devastation that always accompanies war. Or the persecution of Iraqi Christians.
Al-Qaida may not have struck the USA since 9-11. But don't the attacks in Bali, London, and Madrid mean anything to you, John? Or are those attacks inconsequential to you because they weren't in America and didn't--for the most part--affect Americans? Is the "war on terror" really the reason we haven't had any attacks on our soil since 9-11? Maybe the real reason we haven't been attacked since is that Al-Qaida simply wasn't prepared for their level of "success" on 9-11 and didn't have a follow-up plan.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 31, 2008 8:26 AM
I might add that our obsession with Iraq has given al-Qaida and the Taliban plenty of breathing space to reconstitute and plan new attacks.
Posted by: Hermes | July 31, 2008 2:31 PM
Don: Thanks for the follow up. I was going to go there but, as you adroitly point out, I knew that John values American lives more than others'.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 31, 2008 9:13 PM
Go RAND Corporation. It makes basic sense.
Everytime we make an Islamist a heroic jihadist martry you've left the real chance of inducing 5 more people to consider this means of gaining eternal recognition.
Posted by: Tosh | July 31, 2008 11:18 PM
We likely have more "terrorist" enemies now after our Middle East debacle(not to mention fewer friends) than we ever had before. Even so the McCain/Bush people claim greater security for us. It's interesting I read recently that American businesses prefer to invest money in communist Vietnam rather than in the democratic Philippine Islands. Another example of the futility of war.
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | August 1, 2008 9:50 PM
I think that US War on Terror is nothing but a cover, a reason for President Bush to expand American imperialism in 21st century. I am
really hoping for the next elected president to
really think hard about pulling out their troops
and leave them alone. USA as a country is just
WASTING their resources and sons that could have
done much more for their country.
Posted by: Maria | October 22, 2008 11:39 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?