War on Terror

It would appear that the Bush Administration does not realize that Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ) are happy with the present course of events. We fell for OBL's trap when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It has already cost us about a trillion dollars (considering future liabilities such as cost of extracting our troops and future health care for disabled veterans). In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported last month "that the cost of a long-term United States troop presence in Iraq, similar to the U.S. commitment in South Korea, could reach $2 trillion or more in 2008 dollars". (Source: "CBO projects long-term troop presence in Iraq could be costly" by Peter Cohn in CongressDaily dated September 20, 2007.)

There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.

Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.

Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.

Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.

The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.

I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?

As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.

As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.

I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.

It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.

So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.