Related Resources

Itis certainly a delight to be here in this gorgeous location on the beautiful Bosporus in one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

Getting here, however, was another story. And that is the story I have been asked to talk about today – the so-called “War on Terror”.

Passing through security at an American international airport today is tantamount to crossing one of the battle fronts of the “War on Terror.”

Passengers must plan to go to the airport at least two and more hours in advance. Stand in very long lines at several points. Strip oneself of shoes, jewelry, jackets, and scarves. Unpack and boot up computers, jettison water, lotion bottles, and manicure equipment. All the while we listen to alarming public address announcements about unattended bags and code orange alerts. Hearts pound, palms sweat -- prompted by the subtle and not so subtle messages of an impending attack.

By and large the public has stopped complaining. After all, there have been no major terrorist attacks on a US airport or hijacking since the tragedy on September 11, 2001 and since all these heightened security measures were put in place.

Some claim the absence of a major attack within the US vindicates the Administration’s counter terrorism policies.

I disagree. The truth is that seven years after the start of what the Bush Administration calls the “War on Terror”,

Osama bin Laden thrives in unknown parts.
His deputy Ayman Zawahiri conducts global question and answer sessions through the Internet with thousands of followers throughout the world.
The US Intelligence community estimates Al Qaeda has reestablished training camps in Pakistan and has regenerated into scores of independent clandestine cells in North Africa and Europe.
Their funding does not seem to be a problem.

Meanwhile, in the name of counterterrorism, the US Government initiated a war in Iraq that has created greater instability in the Middle East and

undermined US moral leadership,
costs hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and over 4,000 American deaths,
uprooted four million Iraqis,
and provided a clarion call for recruiting new Al Qaeda militants.

How could this be?

Overall, I believe the counterterrorism policies adopted by the current US administration seven years ago have made the world less secure than before.

Today, I would like to examine ttehse weakenesses. But, before you switch-off in utter despair, stick with me for the next point which you might find surprising.

In fact, I believe the future looks promising for more productive international counterterrorism cooperation. It is not too late for new approaches to be adopted that will ensure the security of all our citizens.

The most promising signal comes from the mainstream populations within the Middle East. Public support for Al Qaeda among Muslim communities has eroded.

The changing mood has much more to do with the brutality of Al Qaeda slaughter of innocent civilians than with American policies. But, it is important to note the United States is changing too.

America is in the midst of selecting a new President.

Every four years we engage in a national process to reevaluate the weaknesses and strengths of our leaders. In every election we can make a collective choice on the direction of our country.

It is an opportunity to turn the page to a new chapter of American engagement with the world.

It is a time when the American electorate can search for an alternative vision in our leadership – one that draws on lessons of the past and is not bound by failed policies of the present.

It is a chance to make corrections, and to set a different, hopefully more effective course based more on dialogue than bravado, more on respect than arrogance.

So,taking up this critical challenge, what advice should we offer the next American team as they sort through the shattered pieces of a terrorism policy that was designed by politicians who have, or will soon, exit the playing field?

The first word of advice to the next president is to frame the challenge correctly. Drop the exaggerated misconception that we are fighting a “War on Terrorism”.

Dr. Philip Gordon exposed this flawed terminology in his book Winning the Right War.

He said, “Declaring war might well have been useful to rally public opinion, but it had the significant disadvantage of implying there was a military solution to the problem, and it endowed the terrorist with a warrior status they did not deserve.”

To put it bluntly, terrorism is a tactic. As another analyst complained, we can no more go to war against terrorism than the Allies could go to war against the blitzkrieg during World War II.

To be sure, terrorism is a horrific tactic that targets civilian populations indiscriminately in order to impose a political message or intimidate the government and the population at large.

Unfortunately, the misleading concept of a “War on Terrorism” confused the American public as to who we were warring against. Confusion mixed with fear produces a toxic cocktail of prejudice, bias, and intolerance.

Evidence of this confusion can be found in aspects of our public debate on immigration, Islam and even the economic causes for the spike in oil prices.

It can be found in a style of diplomacy that favors unilateralism. “You are with us or against us” is a difficult way to start a partnership.

Perhaps, the greatest weakness of this “War” approach is that it deluded us into thinking there was easy victory to be had by fighting terrorists with bullets and bombs.

Today we have a greater appreciation that the goal is to curb terrorism, but that the threat can never be extinguished through arms alone.

Whoever becomes the next US president should develop strategies that draw much on diplomatic cooperation, cultural dialogue and tolerance. We understand that open societies, open markets, education and opportunities to participate in well- governed and secure communities are the true factors that diminish the grievances of potential extremists.

Another word of advice to the next President is that respect for other religions and ideas can be a potent antidote to poisonous ideologies of terrorism -- perhaps far more powerful than over-the-horizon bombs.

Armies are unlikely to defeat the ideas that loosely pull Al Qaeda together.

So again, we must refrain from calling it a 'war.'

Some in the US government have already started to move in this direction. The Terrorism Advisory Council pointed out last year that the future of terrorism will be shaped by how we defend against terrorism. If we strengthen our defenses in only one or two areas, Al Qaeda will simply seek out other vulnerabilities and force us to redirect our energies yet again. We must be flexible and adaptable in our approach to counterterrorism.

The measure of our success will not be when every last al Qaeda member is killed but rather when our ideology is seen to be more attractive than one of violence and fear.

A second point is that the US must restore our values to counterterrorism. There must be no more Abu Graibs. No more Guantanamos. No more secret renditions to places that torture. Americans must honor the Geneva Conventions.

Success will come when American actions are seen throughout the Middle East to match our words. We cannot sacrifice our commitment to individual freedoms and democratic principles in our efforts to counter the influence of the extremists.

A third piece of advice for the next occupant of the White House is to understand why people act in ways they do. We must understand what compels extremists to commit acts of terror and sacrificial suicide.

One false notion that has distorted our counter terrorism strategies is the belief that suicide bombers are poverty stricken illiterates who have been brainwashed in radical madrassas. This is simply misleading.

Marc Sageman is a former CIA case officer and psychologist who now writes searing studies on the motivations of militant jihadists. He contends that terrorists are not all marginalized or misfits.

Rather, the current generation of militant extremists are, as he puts it, “part of a violent born-again social movement”, motivated by idealism.” Sageman describes them generally as educated, idealistic young people seeking glory by fighting for fairness and justice. Or at least, fairness and justice as they perceive it.

Some in the western press dwell on religion as the prime motivation for terrorism. In fact, there is diminishing evidence that suicide bombers kill themselves and others for the sake of Islam.

Studies of young men who leave their middle class homes in North Africa or the Gulf reveal they are more likely to spend time in chat rooms than mosques. Their thoughts are more likely associated with narcistic “jihadi cool.”

My point is that to be effective, our counterterrorism strategy must be based on an accurate understanding of the motivations and beliefs of the adversary.

This leads to another cautionary point for the next President. It is a mistake to think that Osama bin Laden offers his global followers a coherent or compelling universal ideology that is sustainable.

The US invasion of Iraq ironically resurrected Al Qaeda from near-extinction in the rugged mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Iraq War enabled Al Qaeda to make a strategic shift to rally around regional grievances.

Suicide fighters from all over, but mostly Libya and Yemen made their way across Syria to fight with their Iraqi Muslim brothers against American troops.

What seemed to be a noble cause looked more compromising up close. Al Qaeda recruits from foreign countries did not want to die in political wars between local rivals. Local communities were enraged when their family members died in terrorist blasts.

Nowhere was this more evident than in Iraq’s Anbar province.

Local Iraqis might sympathize with the cause but they could not abide terrorist tactics. Too many of their family members were killed -- innocent civilian victims of random acts of terror.

Their reaction is now well known. Local Sunni leaders in Iraq organized over 130 Awakening Councils to resist Al Qaeda terrorist groups. The people are effectively pushing Al Qaeda out.

American General David Petreaus was shrewd enough to recognize the indigenous reaction. He shifted American military strategy from traditional combat to a more winning policy based on providing security for the civilian population, economic reconstruction and aid in brokering political deals.

Was it a surge of American troops in Anbar Province or was it the initiatives of the people themselves that curbed terrorism?

Fortunately, this type of popular rejection of terrorism is not isolated. The Pushtun peoples of northern Pakistan were repelled by Al Qaeda type terrorist attacks in the Swat valley area. They rejected extremists in favor of the Awami Nationalist Party in Pakistan’s February election.
In Yemen the old guard terrorists have split from the younger breed over the killing of Spanish tourist and two Yemeni citizens last July.

Governments in the region itself are stepping up to the responsibility of dealing with the terrorist threat with more than just brute force. They are taking steps to initiate much-needed reforms to win back the confidence of their own citizens. And we need to encourage that.

Al Qaeda is not oblivious to this popular backlash and is back-pedaling. Last October Osama bin Laden asked for forgiveness for civilian deaths in Iraq.

His deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri is on the defensive too, with many challenges to Al Qaeda’s tactics of killing innocent Muslim civilians.

My final point is that the next American President should not take these positive developments as signs that the world is a safe place, free of terrorist threats.

There are small groups of determined people whether they are PKK targeting Turkish authorities, North African Al Qaeda, Basque separatists in Spain, etc. who still pose real dangers.

The challenge is to strike an appropriate level of response and use a wide range of tools. One must avoid panic, fear mongering, and exaggeration – as I hinted at in my introductory remarks about the heightened state of security at American airports.

Just how pervasive is the terrorist threat? According to the US State Department Terrorism Report, there were 658 suicide bombings last year -- 542 of them were in Afghanistan and Iraq, arguably combat situations.

Attacks in Iraq alone accounted for nearly half of all terrorist attacks and two thirds of fatalities globally. At the same time, attacks in Iraq declined by nine percent in 2007.

There are other indications that terrorism is containable.

Al Qaeda as an organization in Afghanistan is on the run. We may see genuine progress in Anbar and Afghanistan.

But, the ugly truth is that it may be like squeezing a balloon. Terrorist groups will pop up somewhere else.

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda remnants have moved into Pakistan’s rough no-man-land region along the frontier where it is active.

Al Qaeda is believed to have killed four times as many people in Pakistan in 2007 than the previous year and attacks have doubled.

The risk of rising terrorism in lawless Somalia and parts of Nigeria are on the rise. Indeed, the number of suicide bombing was up 50% in 2007.

Again, I do not want to diminish or understate the threat.

There is always the chance of a terrorist act, perhaps even another dramatic attack. Good security practice, air and land border security, money laundering and terrorist finance tracking, international coordination will continue to be necessary.

After all, the primary responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens. What we must realize, however, is that we live in a highly connected world.

America can not meet threats of this century alone. The security of the American people is linked to the security of all people.

As candidate Barak Obama says, “We must not retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission – we must lead the world by deed and example.”

In the future American terrorism policies can no longer be based on unilateralism or militarism. The American government is ill-advised in efforts to control the population through fear mongering, or protecting them through isolationism.

Leading by example means much more effort to cooperate in transparent ways according to international law, with respect for the interest of others.