Settling in For ‘The Long War’
Who’s up for The Long War? This is a term first popularized in February 2006 for the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, although its origins appear to date back further. In April 2005, James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, co-published a book titled Winning the Long War. [See comments below for Carafano's views- RMW]
I think “The Long War” is a propagandistic term. It implies that the Bush administration’s failure to take out al Qaeda is something to be accepted, even though the USA defeated Germany and Japan in less time during World War II. I also see it as a euphemism for the neocon plan of permanent war in the Middle East, which envisions the overthrow of every Middle Eastern government except for Israel.
Realistically, we will probably have to keep a couple of Army divisions or the bulk of the Marine Corps in Afghanistan for many more years unless we want that country to revert to the warlords and Taliban. Iraq, however, would be better off immediately without an American occupation. Our withdrawal would not be the doomsday scenario some have predicted.
The Long War posits a false equivalence with the Cold War. We are not facing an existential threat from al Qaeda. Other countries have dealt with an external terrorism threat without overreacting as the USA has done. The Bush administration has deliberately exaggerated the menace of al Qaeda to justify its own actions– authorizing torture, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless spying on Americans. None of these actions produced a net benefit to national security.
A new report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (PDF) on the Global War on Terror (GWOT) reveals that the “Long War” has proven counterproductive.
Since 2002–2003, the overall US position in the GWOT has slipped. …The continued presence of US military forces in Iraq has been a boon for the jihadi movement’s propaganda effort and bolstered the legitimacy of its call to defensive jihad.
Why are we losing? Unlike our government, the enemy knows what they are trying to accomplish and exactly whom they are at war with. According al-Qaeda expert Dr. Saad al-Faqih, the strategy of Ayman al-Zawahiri depended on self-defeating American military action (or overreaction).
Zawahiri impressed upon Bin Laden the importance of understanding the American mentality. The American mentality is a cowboy mentality– …America with all its resources and establishments will shrink into a cowboy when irritated successfully. They will then elevate you and this will satisfy the Muslim longing for a leader who can successfully challenge the West.
Zawahiri anticipated the Bush Doctrine, and here we are. We keep making the same mistakes. Just look at Somalia, where our military actions and support for an Ethiopian invasion have created an Islamic insurgency where none existed.
Al Qaeda’s strategy also has an economic dimension. The Iraq occupation is already on track to cost $3 trillion. Matthew Yglesias:
Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad. Osama bin Laden himself has said this, and it’s the only strategy that makes sense. A smallish number of people with no base of resources can’t possibly defeat us unless we shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly…
Back in 2006, Stephen Colbert satirized The Long War as a boneheaded concept:
“This undefined, open-ended war on anything gives us a lot of freedom. The only question is, do we Americans have it in us to stick out a long war? Well I say, as long as we’re under attack Americans will support this war. And as long as we’re at war, obviously, we’re under attack. The Long War is sending a message of hope to America. There’s no foreseeable conclusion, and we’re not sure who we’re fighting. Remember, we didn’t start this war, and we’re sure as hell not going to be the ones to stop it.”
All we need now is a recruiting poster for The Long War. It will do wonders for enlistments, don’t you think?
More info:
Stephen Colbert explains The Long War (video)
The Long War Journal (yes, this war has its own journal)
March 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
rmwarnick
Columbia sent troops across the border because Ecuador is harboring FARC terrorists. The same terrorists that Hugo Chavez is supporting. Columbia did not send troops or even threaten Venezuela so Chavez’ actions are not to defend his own country but to defend a terrorist group (FARC) that the United States, Canada, the UK, and the EU all agree is a terrorist organization.
Check out Wikipedia under “FARC” and other resources.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The name of the country you are referring to is Colombia, not “Columbia.”
What about The Long War? You up for it? Or is it a gift to al Qaeda?
March 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
wmwarnick
Thank you, missed that one. The spell checker even missed the “columbia” error. It has been corrected on my blog too.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
You’re not alone. Check out the post above this one…
March 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
The only long war I’m up for is when Saudi Arabia sets up lavish green zones in America, destroys the rest of the infrastructure and tells us they’re going to bring us freedom and democracy.
Oh, that’s right, the infrastructure is already being destroyed.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
If your talking about Washington DC “District of Columbia” then there is a ‘u’, but that is spelled different than the country of Colombia. This explains why the spell checker didn’t flag it, because both are correct spellings depending which place you are talking about.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I’m bored.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I have a hammer and some nails, you could entertain and apply yourself to something.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Hello Glenn. I may have just been resting. I do have nail guns (one for each hand) and if the studs even begin to think about moving around, I put them into action, Now that’s entertainment.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am
O Columbia! the gem of the ocean,
The home of the brave and the free,
The shrine of each patriot’s devotion,
A world offers homage to thee;
Thy mandates make heroes assemble,
When Liberty’s form stands in view;
Thy banners make tyranny tremble,
When borne by the red, white, and blue,
When borne by the red, white, and blue,
When borne by the red, white, and blue,
Thy banners make tyranny tremble,
When borne by the red, white and blue.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Richard, pardon my cynicism and snark, but any more I wonder if the banners make tyranny tremble in fear of losing its franchise.
Oh, and here’s a bit cribbed from Eschaton:
And we pray to our God
who we know is American
He reigns from on high
He speaks to us thru middlemen
And He shepherds flock
we sing out and we praise His name
He supports us in war
He presides over football games
and the right will prevail
all our troubles will be resolved
We have faith in the lord
Uness there’s sex or $ involved
Morrigan
March 9th, 2008 at 5:37 am
I first used the term “Long War” in 2003 in the below commentary. I do think “war” is appropriate framework for this national security challenge.
The Long War Against Terrorism
by James Carafano
Two years down in the war on terror. How many more to go? We don’t know.
But, given the patience and determination of our enemies — and the fact that two armed conflicts have yet to dampen their enthusiasm for attacking America — it’s safe to say we have much more work ahead of us than behind us.
America’s enemies have demonstrated their staying power — they spent seven years planning the attacks on New York and Washington — and we must demonstrate ours. We’ll have to spend billions of dollars and suffer more casualties before we prevail.
Asking if Americans are safer now than they were two years ago poses the wrong question. We can forget about ever being “safe†from terrorism again. But we can reasonably expect that terrorists won’t run our lives or attack us with impunity — and that we’ll thrive even as we hound our enemies until they join the Soviets in the back pages of history books.
But it will take time. Before this is over, the time we spent defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam’s forces in Iraq will be to the timeline of the war on terror as the Korean war and the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan were to the Cold War — relatively brief flashpoints of action in a long, sustained struggle.
Such a war requires our leaders to understand that our staying power, our will to win, is as important as any weapon in our arsenal. Our enemies doubt this. Saddam Hussein said before the first Gulf War that Americans wouldn’t tolerate “10,000 dead in one battle.†Osama bin Laden said he was emboldened to direct the Sept. 11 attacks because watching support wane for the American operation in Somalia “convinced us America is a paper tiger.â€
Curiously, the public seems to understand the difficulty of the task better than our representatives in Congress. A poll taken in July by The Wall Street Journal and NBC found that 58 percent of Americans think we should stay in Iraq “as long as necessary to complete the process, even if it takes as long as five years.†Even after the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad was bombed, a Newsweek poll found 70 percent supported maintaining current force levels in Iraq for more than a year, and more than half favored staying 10 years or more if necessary.
Our history argues for patience, too. The National Security Act of 1947 created a unified defense department and the CIA, the nation’s two premier Cold War weapons. But it took about a decade for these organizations to figure out how best to fight the Russian bear. The instruments used to fight the Soviets — NATO, our nuclear arsenal and military assistance programs — emerged during this period.
The focus that brought victory over the Soviets emerged over time as well. President Truman at first shelved NSC-68, the master plan to confront the Russians. Defense budgets shrank. The American people were consumed with finding their place in the postwar economic boom.
But the Korean War, with losses far exceeding anything seen in the war on terror, brought the Cold War to Main Street. President Eisenhower took office with a clear mandate and a new strategy to build a strong economy, preserve our open society and organize defenses for the long term.
President Bush sees himself in the Eisenhower mode. He wants to lay the groundwork to win the long war against terrorism. It won’t be easy. The Department of Homeland Security, which combined 22 federal agencies, will need several years to become truly effective.
Still, President Bush needs to continue to remind Americans of his plans for homeland security. He needs to rein in spending on new security initiatives. Funding for homeland security has more than doubled since the 9/11 attacks. To add more funds before these are absorbed and committed wisely would be wasteful and counterproductive.
The Department of Homeland Security needs to get organized and develop a national response plan as well as strategies for information technology, intelligence sharing and personnel needs. Congress needs to supply funding for emergency responders, intelligence reforms and chemical infrastructure security. State and local governments need to develop regional cooperation plans, share information and methods, and work with the Department of Homeland Security to develop a true national emergency response system.
Vast vulnerabilities remain. Two years after 9/11, we need to re-affirm our national commitment to defeating the long-term threat of global terrorism.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
[...] is not the strategic situation the USA is facing, despite what neocon proponents of “The Long War” want us to believe. Whatever their real reasons, they want to justify aggressive war on a [...]