Small Wars Journal

Can the Obama Administration Wind Down the War on Terror?

Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:37pm
Can the Obama Administration Wind Down the War on Terror?

by Zachary Keck

The National Strategy for Counterterrorism that the White House released last week signals the Obama administration's determination to enter into a new phase in America's fight against terrorism, one in which the United States significantly reduces the amount of resources and energy it devotes to the campaign. While strategically prudent- given al-Qaeda's diminished operational capacity, the death of Osama Bin Laden and the Arab Spring's blow to al-Qaeda's ideological appeal- implementing the strategy for winding down the war on terror will be a formidable challenge.

While pledging to remain vigilant in the fight against al-Qaeda, the document essentially lays out a three-pronged approach for reducing the United States commitment to that effort. The first and most straightforward element is redefining the enemy in a more concrete and limited manner. Just as the United States began the Cold War by conflating the Soviet threat with one of communism generally, the Bush administration famously responded to 9/11 by announcing a global campaign against the tactic of terrorism- instead of al-Qaeda proper. Although the Obama administration has tried to rectify the strategic misstep of its predecessor since taking office, nowhere has this been stated more clearly than in the new Counterterrorism (CT) strategy.

Thus, early on the strategy states "we are not at war with the tactic of terrorism or the religion of Islam. We are at war with a specific organization- al-Qaeda (2)." After noting that other terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas continue to pose threats to the country, the administration pledges to "avoid conflating them and al-Qaeda into a single enemy (4)." Lest there be some confusion on the matter, Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan stated in his speech unveiling the new CT strategy that its principal focus: "is the network that poses the most direct and significant threat to the United States, and that is al-Qaeda. We use these terms deliberately."

The second and more difficult element is the administration's goal of shifting a greater share of the burden of fighting al-Qaeda onto other countries. Although the United States has long collaborated in prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda, the new strategy envisions other states taking the lead in their respective regions for the first time.

In the Persian Gulf, for instance, the strategy pledges to, "look chiefly to our partners in the region- Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and others- to take the lead, with U.S. support and assistance (14)." Similarly, the "critical point" in Southeast Asia is that the United States will rely on regional states "to bear the responsibility for addressing the challenges posed by terrorists in the region (16)." Only in Africa, where countries have minimal CT capabilities, does the new strategy depict the United States as maintaining most of the burden for the foreseeable future.

Although desirable, buck-passing responsibilities for fighting Al-Qaeda requires other countries to be both —and able to accept the burden. In areas like Europe and Southeast Asia, this assumption is sound; in South Asia, Iraq and the Persian Gulf writ large, it seems overly optimistic. More concerning is that the strategy does not discuss how the United States will respond if the Obama administration's rosy assessments do not come to pass.

The administration's third element for reducing the United States' commitment to the war on terror is narrowing the focus to the U.S. homeland, and lower Americans' expectations about the success they can expect even in this area. Whereas the Bush administration unequivocally vowed to prevent any future attacks against the United States, the Obama administration, while pledging to take every preventive measure possible, admits that periodic low-scale attacks on the homeland will likely remain a fact of life. Building on a Presidential Policy Directive released in May, the new strategy therefore asks the American people to be resilient in the face of these continued attacks, portraying America's ability to sustain and recover from them as a strength that will demoralize al-Qaeda.

Although this may be a necessary dose of realism, getting the American people to accept it is another matter altogether. Long protected by two large bodies of water, it would unprecedented for Americans to accept the inevitability of periodic attacks. Selling this to the public will therefore be the administration's most difficult public relations campaign to date. Given that the administration has often struggled with public relations in the past, there is little reason to think they will be successful in this matter.

In sum, although the administration's determination to wind down the war on terror may be strategically prudent, it will require extraordinary Presidential leadership to see it through. Is President Obama up to the task?

Zachary Keck writes on U.S. Foreign Policy at Examiner.com. His commentary has appeared on the websites of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, World Politics Review and the Diplomat among elsewhere.

Comments

Lianna (not verified)

Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:30am

JM Larmore:

I would disagree with your point on the American public not accepting troop withdrawl. This is based on the fact that candidates have run on a platform touting reduced troop levels in order to gain favor with the public. I would argue that your point about "American ignorance" is more appropriate when considering that the public might not understand/care about the dangers imposed on troops that are left behind or the fact of many operations suffering from less resources.

I also don't think you're right in considering that the US must hand over a monetary compensation. Rather, I think one must think about from a different angle. There is a need to recognize that many states do not have the necessasry capabilities to fight terrorism effectively. Does this mean we have to hand them money? No, it means the US military must be responsible and assist those countries to become more adept. Whether this is through training or in fact, handing over money to build up their resources.

Furthermore, have you ever been to NYC? The threat of terror attacks is very real here and felt- if not consciously, then unconsciously. Every child can read the ads "If you see something- say something." And people heed this. I myself have gathered police to an unattended bag and I know of other friends who have as well. We acknowledge the fact that we're vulnerable and we work to try to change that.

JM Larmore (not verified)

Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:41pm

The removal of Bin Laden requires the President to address our current disposition about the War on Terrorism. Reducing troop strength in OEF is not an option do to public opinion and perception. That opinion is not related as much to our action aboard as they are to the ignorance of the public and lack of knowledge on what our National Security Strategy is and what it means.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_secur…

The American public will not accept maintaining the status quo aboard and failure to redirect at this point results in public opinion shifting back to toward the Vietnam Era regardless if it is or is not in the long-term interest of the Nation.
The second goal of shifting responsibility sounds great in theory but the real question is ($$) how much are we going to pay (compensate) those countries for their efforts since it is reasonable to assume their will be monetary compensation in return for their commitment. Which leads to the question of how that will affect our struggling economy and growing debt?
Finally, addressing the realism of security threats is another one of those things that we as American brush to the side with the attitude that it will not happen to me while at the same time we whine about increased security at the airport or customs.

Is the President up to the task? He has to be, I dont think he really has a choice.