From Deterrence to Deferrence in the War on Terror
by Dr. Anthony Vinci
Download the full article: From Deterrence to Deferrence in the War on Terror
Since the War on Terror began with the attacks of on 9/11, there has been a great amount of speculation about how to approach this war and what sort of strategy to use. The problem has been that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are so different from conventional enemies that it is difficult to know exactly how to defeat them in the traditional sense of the word. Al Qaeda and its highly dispersed, networked and franchised organization make concepts like unconditional surrender, destruction of command and control and deterrence hard to conceptualize, much less practically carry out.
Deterrence in particular was a strategic approach that the US had grown comfortable with during the Cold War and which some have tried to apply to the War on Terror. Indeed, Al Qaeda has also thought about strategy against the US in terms of deterrence. While there is some value in a deterrent approach to terrorist organizations, ultimately, it appears that it does not provide an effective defense and does not illustrate an effective offense against terrorist groups.
This article suggests an alternative strategic approach to combating Al Qaeda and in general pursuing the War on Terror. The approach might be called deferrence, as in to defer (not to be confused with deference). The central tenet of deferrence is Clausewitz's observation that time is on the side of the defender. The idea is to defer attacks by Al Qaeda and the strengthening of the Al Qaeda organization, by keeping up ongoing attacks against the organization, which then becomes forced to spend its time reacting, rather than acting offensively. Since Al Qaeda is an essentially military organization, it must continually be on the offense in order to exist. By keeping the busy trying to survive, at an acceptable level of cost and violence, the US will be provided with the time necessary to implement long-term strategies meant to undermine the group, such as ideological arguments, which will lead to the eventual fading away of the group.
Download the full article: From Deterrence to Deferrence in the War on Terror
Anthony Vinci, PhD, International Relations, The London School of Economics, is the author of 'Armed Groups and the Balance of Power: The International Relations of Terrorists, Warlords and Insurgents' (Routledge 2008) as well as articles in the Journal of Strategic Studies, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Small Wars and Insurgencies and author journals. He currently consults on national security issues.
