In Foreign Policy, Gustavo de las Casas makes an intriguingly counter-intuitive argument for why al Qaeda should not be destroyed—at least not completely:
The world would be wise to keep al Qaeda alive, paradoxically enough, for security reasons. Like it or not, keeping a battered al Qaeda intact (if weak) is the world’s best hope of funneling Islamist fanatics into one social network — where they stand the best chance of being spotted, tracked, and contained. The alternative, destroying the terrorist group, would risk fragmenting al Qaeda into thousands of cells, and these will be much harder to follow and impossible to eradicate. It’s the counterterrorist’s dilemma, and the only real choice is the least unsavory: Al Qaeda must live.
What’s most interesting about this argument is not so much the conclusion—which I think is entirely correct—but the initial revulsion we have to the idea. The reason is that while modern warfare has changed, our thinking about it has not.
The mental model of warfare we carry around in our heads tends to be based on the two World Wars of the twentieth century: The war is fought until one side decisively imposes its will upon the other, resulting in a unconditional surrender and a cessation of direct conflict. This model fit most wars of the modern age that were between nation-states since these actors had clear-cut objectives and a desire to end fighting after their goals were accomplished.
Wars that are carried out by non-state actors and that have idealogical objectives, however, do not fit this model. Terrorist groups fully recognize this fact, which allows them to take advantage of our refusal to acknowledge reality. These organizations know that the simplest way to impose their will on a Western enemy is to keep fighting. Modern democracies have no stomach for extended warfare and will almost always surrender if a conflict last more than ten years. But since the terrorists have objectives that can never be realized, they will keep fighting even though their enemy has given up.
Admitting this reality can help us recognize that the “war on terror” is really a long-term (think centuries, not years), global counter-insurgency operation. The idea that we can isolate ourselves within our own borders was a noble but foolish dream even during the age when nations went to war against each other; in the era of the terrorist cell it is even less of an option.
We have no choice but to fight. But by containing the enemy—rather than trying eradicate them completely—we can limit the detrimental effects of what has been aptly called “the long war.”
November 12th, 2009 | 11:44 am
Do you guys even listen to yourselves? This is a call for permanent war, as in Eurasia vs. Oceania.
Now more than ever, al-Qaeda needs to be relegated to intensive police work rather than the hamfisted methods of military engagement.
November 12th, 2009 | 11:45 am
I think the notion of keep AQ intact is beyond counter-intuitive. It defies logic. It’s permise is flawed in two ways.
1. It is already fragmented into hundreds, if not thousands, of semiautonomous cells.
2. Radicalized people are attracted to supposed strength, especially in the Mideast. If AQ is rightly percieved as unable to accomplish its objectives, another head will grow on the hydra.
What makes AQ work, and what the West doesn’t have the stomach to resist, is its funding network, principally a few Wahabist sheiks and their sham Muslim charitable organizations. Defeat that and AQ will have to start raising funds like every other two-bit terror outfit – through bank robbery and drug trafficking.
November 12th, 2009 | 11:59 am
Disgusted This is a call for permanent war, as in Eurasia vs. Oceania.
This is not a “call for permanent” war but an acknowledgement that the war is not going to end just because we are tired of fighting.
Now more than ever, al-Qaeda needs to be relegated to intensive police work rather than the hamfisted methods of military engagement.
I don’t know of anyone in the national security apparatus—even those most critical of war—that believe al Qaeda can be handled by “police work.” Pretending the problem will go away is not a solution.
Bill 1. It is already fragmented into hundreds, if not thousands, of semiautonomous cells.
True, but they are still organized around a central hierarchy. A semiautonomous cell can’t do much without the training and funding of the rest of the organization.
If AQ is rightly percieved as unable to accomplish its objectives, another head will grow on the hydra.
AQ has been proven to be ineffective for the past eight years yet the continue to grow. The reason, I believe, is that while they are not all that effective, they are still considered more powerful than any alternative organizations.
What makes AQ work, and what the West doesn’t have the stomach to resist, is its funding network,
As long as the Wahabist have oil, they will have money. We could refuse to buy oil from the Middle East and Russia and China would still be able to keep the money flowing to them.
November 12th, 2009 | 1:51 pm
disgusted former reader is right. It is a cop-out to say that you are just acknowledging the war will go on. You are advocating that we continue it, and that we consider it as a basically permanent war, and (most incredibly) continue it while intentionally leaving the main organizational foe intact to fight. Regardless of how you dress it up, this is indeed Eurasia vs. Oceania, in the sense that it accomplishes the same purpose. Encouraging such a perpetual state of war inevitably serves totalitarianism.
November 12th, 2009 | 2:17 pm
Darcy You are advocating that we continue it, and that we consider it as a basically permanent war, . . .
In a sense you are right. Many people pretend that if we stop calling it a “war” that the terrorists will go away and leave us alone. I don’t believe that so I guess in a sense my acknowledgement that we should keep fighting back and refuse to allow our civilization to be destroyed is “advocating that we continue it.”
Part of the problem, I think, is that America has become so enamored with consumerist culture that we think it can be applied to anything (religion, foreign policy, etc.). We think everything is about our personal preferences and choices. Don’t want to keep fighting the war? Well then, just stop. We don’t like “permanent war” so let’s not continue it.
This is a very modern idea and, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, insane.
. . . it while intentionally leaving the main organizational foe intact to fight.
If you read my post (and the article) you should have come away with the sense that killing al Queda would not end the war. In fact, destroying the “main organizational foe” just makes it harder to see the enemy. In the Vietnam War the main organizational foe was the North Korean Army. The more we destroyed them the more the fight shifted to the guerrilla band of fighters, the Vietcong. Who do you think was easier to fight against?
No one thinks that destroying al Queda is going to end radical Islam. So what benefit would it be besides a temporary psychological boost? Remember all of the people who thought the Iraq War would end once we captured Saddam? Many people have the same mistaken impression about bin Laden.
Encouraging such a perpetual state of war inevitably serves totalitarianism.
What’s your proposed alternative?
November 12th, 2009 | 3:34 pm
This claim is nonsense. You’re never going to completely eliminate the jihadi movement. It is 1300+ years old, after all. But lone wolves can do a much more limited amount of damage than organized groups. And despite the absurd claims that by killing terrorist leaders you only encourage more terrorists, these groups are ALWAYS extremely regimented and top-down organizations. Chop off the head and the beast is crippled. Even a group like Shining Path in Peru, that was so strong in the early 1990s that most observers had completely written off Peru’s chances, was obliterated almost overnight when its leader was captured.
It must be mentioned, of course, that Osama is dead, and has been for nearly 8 years. Pretending otherwise is natural CYA by the government, but we individuals don’t have to play pretend.
November 12th, 2009 | 3:36 pm
“In the Vietnam War the main organizational foe was the North Korean Army. The more we destroyed them the more the fight shifted to the guerrilla band of fighters, the Vietcong.”
I’m sorry, but this is just plain untrue (even with the change to “Vietnam” from “Korea”). In fact, it’s years since I’ve even seen it argued anymore, because it’s so wrong. The Viet Cong was utterly destroyed during the Tet Offensive. After that the conflict was 100% against the NVA.
November 12th, 2009 | 4:00 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things and Michael Graham, Rev. John M. Taggatz. Rev. John M. Taggatz said: This looks interesting… RT @ROFTERS: Why the West Needs Al Qaeda http://bit.ly/1hR6K2 http://myloc.me/1td4E [...]
November 12th, 2009 | 4:15 pm
Brian Chop off the head and the beast is crippled. . . .Osama is dead, and has been for nearly 8 years.
So by your own logic, al Queda should have been crippled for the past eight years. Is that what you claim?
The Viet Cong was utterly destroyed during the Tet Offensive.
Tet was in 1968. What about from 1961-1968?
November 12th, 2009 | 4:30 pm
Mr. Carter: AQ has of course been crippled, not just because Osama is dead but because most of their top leaders are dead, and they don’t have any sanctuary right now to enable them to train and launch large-scale operation. They still should be finished off, as should other groups that will inevitably rise into the vacuum.
The Vietnam strategy was awful until Creighton Abrams took over and waged an extremely effective counter-insurgency campaign (he was helped by the utter stupidity of Tet, of course).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact