Should Obama continue Bush's war on terrorism?

» Discuss Article    (9 Comments)

Point: David B. Rivkin Jr.

The major organizing principle of the Bush administration's foreign policy has been that the U.S. is in a state of armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their allied Islamic fundamentalist groups. This view has drawn considerable criticism. Some critics claim that terrorism does not pose an existentialist national security threat to the United States. Others contend that, even if the threat from terrorism after 9/11 was real, treating it as a war was counterproductive. Still other naysayers argue that for the U.S. to engage in a war of indeterminate duration unacceptably warps our political and legal culture. In my view, all of these arguments are fundamentally wrong. Indeed, the Obama administration will have no choice but to continue to treat our struggle with jihadist groups as a protracted armed conflict. Failure to do so would produce catastrophic consequences.

Though any new administration will want to commission its own studies and intelligence assessments, the Obama administration is fortunate to inherit the just-released 112-page bipartisan report of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. This congressionally established commission, chaired by former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida (who served for many years on the Senate Intelligence Committee), has reached a chilling conclusion: "Without greater urgency and decisive action by the world community, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction would be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by 2013." "More likely than not" is another way of saying that the probability of such an attack is greater than 50%.

Even if one were to discount these odds, the threat remains a grave one. The U.S. is target No. 1 for the jihadist entities worldwide. Indeed, the consequences of a detonation in any large American urban center of even a poorly designed and indifferently constructed nuclear device (with a relatively low yield, comparable to the Hiroshima on Nagasaki-type devices) would be catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people would be killed and wounded, the economy might well tip into depression, and our way of life would be altered forever. In this regard, it would behoove critics who care about preserving our system of ordered liberty -- which is something I care about passionately -- to appreciate the fact that a mass-casualty terrorist attack featuring the use of weapons of mass destruction on American soil would effect a dramatic change in how we balance liberty and public safety. The tidal wave of public anger and fear would put great stress on our political and legal system, likely sweeping away many established precedents and procedures. Accordingly, the new administration should exert every effort to keep America safe from terrorist attacks, just as the Bush administration did.

I recognize that the president-elect has strongly criticized many of the Bush administration's war on terrorism-related policies. I fully expect that many particulars of these policies will change. The Obama administration will certainly mount a renewed effort to elicit better cooperation on terrorism-related issues from friends and allies who have grown critical of many Bush administration policies. We also have to be judicious in making sure that we continue to reach out and strengthen the forces of moderation in the Islamic world and that U.S. anti-terror policies are not misperceived as an expression of hostility to Islam.

Although the U.S. will have to overcome many challenges -- political, economic, security, cultural, energy and environmental -- in the years ahead, we must ensure that the war on terrorism itself retains an important place in our statecraft. This vital effort will continue to demand high levels of institutional, intellectual and resource commitment from the U.S. government. Accordingly, I hope and expect that the Obama team will continue to appreciate the fact that the U.S. is fundamentally in a state of war, will remain in this situation for a long time to come and that we must pursue legal, defense and foreign policy strategies appropriate in wartime.

David B. Rivkin Jr., partner in the Washington office of Baker Hostetler and a contributing editor of the National Review and National Interest magazines, served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations in a variety of legal and policy positions.

Counterpoint: Lawrence J. Korb

David, your description of the major organizing principle of the Bush administration's foreign policy gives too much credit to the administration. According to President Bush and his acolytes, they are engaged in a global war on terrorism, not an armed conflict with specific groups, as you suggest.

But, as has been pointed out by many foreign policy realists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, the global war on terrorism is not an apt assessment of the threat nor the proper way to deal with it. Terrorism is a tactic, the threat is not general, and calling it a war gives those violent extremists a status they do not deserve. The struggle against these elements will not be won militarily. It is no accident that Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has banished the phrase "global war on terrorism" from military publications and that President-elect Barack Obama has not used the term nor will he use the concept to guide his national security policies.

David, you are right that a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a group of violent extremists is the most serious threat to the United States. In fact, during the 2004 presidential campaign, that was the one issue on which both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry agreed. But you are wrong to imply that the group that gets hold of such a weapon would necessarily represent a particular religion and that the way to prevent them from acquiring it is primarily through armed force. Rather, the way to prevent such an attack is to stop the proliferation of nuclear materials.

The Bush administration has done very little in this area. For example, it has spent more than $500 billion on the mindless, needless, senseless war in Iraq (which Al Qaeda, which had no presence there until we invaded under false pretenses, used as an excellent worldwide recruiting tool) but has reduced funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to less than $1 billion a year.

As a result, we have secured less nuclear bomb material in the former Soviet Union since 9/11 than we did in the years immediately preceding the terrorist attacks. In addition, the Bush administration sent only a low-level envoy to the United Nations' Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2005. Bush also refused to sign the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, did not send the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty after signing it to the Senate for ratification, and tried to develop new nuclear weapons. Consequently, the probability of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands has increased.

David, you are correct that the new administration should continue to reach out and strengthen the forces of moderation in the Islamic world, but you do not tell us how. You do not acknowledge that to prevail in the struggle with these violent extremists, we must also reach out to the rest of the world and restore America's standing in the world.

The Obama administration can reach out in several ways. In addition to the steps mentioned above, it can (and should) close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, join the International Criminal Court and rejoin the Kyoto negotiations on climate change and the discussions on the Biological Weapons Protocol (the Bush administration walked out on both negotiations).

By defining the threat correctly and using all the instruments of national power in an integrated way, the Obama administration has the opportunity to enhance our security much more effectively than Bush has done over the past eight years.

Lawrence J. Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration.