“And a war will be won,” concluded CIA Director Leon Panetta’s email to the CIA last Monday, following the capture and deadly shooting of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and a man considered by some to be the most dangerous extremist of the 21st century, The raid on Bin Laden’s million-dollar compound in Pakistan by US forces concluded the longest and most expensive manhunt of all time. Panetta’s email mirrored the language of President Obama and other top national security officials, all of whom focused on the idea that America can and will win the so-called “war on terror.” Some even said that American troops will not leave Afghanistan or Pakistan until Al-Qaeda is eliminated. Simply, that is not going to happen. Unless American troops are willing to spend decades more fighting the terrorist network and its affiliates across the world, Al-Qaeda as an organization is not going anywhere. And the “war on terror” is even more of a problem. Firstly, a war against terror can never be won; terror will always exist. No matter how many terrorists US forces track down and kill, terror will still be there. Secondly, since the Obama administration and the American intelligence groups have created a war that is, simply, impossible to win, they have essentially doomed themselves politically. Sure, it was the Bush administration that started both the war and its nickname, but the Obama administration is continuing military engagement in the Middle East. And while US forces may leave Afghanistan and they have nearly entirely left Iraq, this does not equate to winning a war on terror. Finally, in addition to the impossibility of winning a “war on terror,” internationally, the phrasing may unintentionally have an unwanted effect upon those whom the words are directed. Beyond our allies or enemies’ feelings internationally, and even beyond our own country’s opinion, using the phrase “the war on terror” allows the American government to make an excuse for still being in Iraq, an excuse for weak Afghanistan policy and an excuse to house long-term detainees at Guantanamo Bay and perform possibly illegal interrogation techniques upon them. If by eliminating “the war on terror” from our national vocabulary, we eliminate one more shield for the government to hide behind when dealing with detainees, it needs to go. The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of the United States is a triumph for the Obama administration. It makes the administration seem more legitimate on foreign policy, and it is an enormous gain for national security. Looking forward to the 2012 presidential election, Obama, having finally carried out what Bush never could, has a real leg up on some of his potential opponents who have less foreign policy experience. Still, in order to really harness that advantage, Obama will have to keep reminding the American people that bin Laden’s death was under his administration, as some pundits have credited the death of bin Laden all the way back to the Reagan administration (who funded Al-Qaeda is the first place.) Beyond the political issues, bin Laden’s death simply does not signify the end of the war on terror. It may weaken Al-Qaeda’s operational ability, but even if his death meant the end of Al-Qaeda, it still would not mean the end of the war on terror. Leon Panetta is wrong: a war on terror cannot be won, since terror will always exist.
2011-06-07