Zbigniew Brzezinski has a piece worth reading in today’s WaPo (Terrorized by ‘War on Terror’) wherein he makes the following argument:
The “war on terror” has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration’s elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America’s psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.The damage these three words have done — a classic self-inflicted wound — is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.
I think that this is essentially correct, although the issue to me is really less the words themselves as what the words represent (i.e., US foreign and domestic policy over the last five-plus years). Indeed, this is what Brzezinski is getting at as well. As inaccurate as they are, I can live with calling the overall policy the “war on terror” at this point, only because it is too late to go back in time and substitute a new phrase.
The bottom line is that while there is little doubt that 9/11 was one of the single most devastating days in US history (in terms of its overall effect on the national consciousness) and that the events of that day rightly sparked an intense interest in the issue of international terrorism and its potential threat to the United States. It is also the case that the administration has created a false reality regarding that threat which had guided US policy since that time.
Indeed, the continued insistence that the war on terror represents an existential struggle of historical proportions is at the heart of the problem. As Brzezinski notes:
To justify the “war on terror,” the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.
We are not in a struggle of the magnitude of either WWII or the Cold War, yet the administration has pursued its foreign policy (and some of its domestic policy) as if this was the case.
That the initial response to 9/11 needed to be dramatic and swift I do not deny. Indeed, the invasion of Afghanistan and the initial attacks on the leadership of al Qaeda were impressive and, on balance, successful (the final hours of Tora Bora not withstanding).
I will confess, my initial response to the 9/11 attacks (and the still unsolved anthrax attacks) was that we were in a position that required substantial actions to counter future attacks. I continue to think that, in a general sense, that instinct was correct–and policies such as the dismantlement of al Qaeda’s top leadership and focusing on their ability to acquire financing was the correct one to pursue. I favored a more aggressive policy stances towards international terrorist groups, as I believed (and still believe) that our government’s approach to the issues was too lax prior to 9/11 (from the 1993 WTC bombing to the African embassies to the Cole).
Still, long ago it should have become clear that another 9/11 was not as imminent as we thought was the case and the need has long passed to re-evaluate exactly where we are and where we should be in regards to counter-terrorism and the overall issue of US foreign policy goals. Hopefully the 2024 presidential campaign cycle will allow such a re-evaluation, although I am not especially optimistic on that front.
Sphere: Related Content
Taylor on Brzezinski on Terrorism
Steven Taylor writes:The bottom line is that while there is little doubt that 9/11 was one of the single most devastating days in US history (in terms of its overall effect on the national consciousness) and that the events of
Trackback by ProfessorBainbridge.com ® — Sunday, March 25, 2024 @ 4:55 pm
May I suggest perhaps a simple change of just one word: from “War on Terror” to “War of Terror”? This would be relatively easy to accomplish and might help undo some of the harm done. Certainly it would help to clarify some of the actions taken by the Admin. - some people may start to better understand what is going on.
I seem to remember somewhere reading your view that Bush was not the worst President the USA has seen. Not even one of the worst five. Do you still agree with that statement? I don’t claim to know much about US history, but who was worse than he? (in my opinion, it would be easier to argue that Bush is the incarnation of the anti-Christ than that he is a good President)
Regards.
Comment by James — Sunday, March 25, 2024 @ 5:45 pm
The post you refer to was probably this one.
I will readily confess that Bush continues to go down in my estimation on a near daily basis.
However, I prefer to reserve the ranking of a given president in terms of overall historical significance until after the end of a given term. Indeed, it usually takes a while before a serious evaluation can be made.
Having said that, at the moment he certainly is trending downward, shall we say.
Anti-Christ, however, may be a bit harsh…
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, March 25, 2024 @ 6:05 pm
I disagree with this assessment.
The 9/11 attacks were a culmination of an ongoing war against the US by weaker states through proxy “terrorists”. In order to secure our future we needed to frame the issue as a war in order to justify the lives that would be lost and the military expenditures necessary. The threat is taken very seriously by those whose job it is to keep us secure. If another attack were to come who would get first blame? The same President some are now saying is going too far. How we stretch that into a comparison to the anti-christ is an example of less serious thinking as well as a lack of theological knowledge.
The claim of a “culture of fear” in America is another example of something that is not real outside the Ivory Towers of academia. There is no fear on the streets of America. I don’t worry about who might be listening to my phone calls because no one is and if they were what do I, or most Americans, care. We worry about the latest tax the state legislature is passing or if our city council is corrupt.
The grandiose claims of Mr. Brzezinski are political stabs at a leader he doesn’t like. They lack true substance.
Comment by Steven Plunk — Sunday, March 25, 2024 @ 7:47 pm
We are in Iraq right now, and threatening Iran because of the administration’s view on the war on terror. Listen to Dick Cheney talk (and he is the one who speaks of an existential threat) and I think you will find that the notions of fear as a policy motivator exist well outside the halls of the academy.
Further, fear has motivated a deal amount of legislation. The current situation with the USAs wouldn’t be happening if it weren’t for the Patriot Act. There are real world ramifications for these actions and attitudes.
And I would note that I do not dent that there is room for substantial military action, but that doesn’t mean we have to treat the situation just like the Cold War, where are existence truly was threatened.
Thee is a middle ground between doing nothing and seeing a mushroom cloud around every corner.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, March 25, 2024 @ 8:03 pm
Heck, the ridiculous things we have to do to fly on an airplane these days underscores part of Brzezinski’s point.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, March 25, 2024 @ 8:05 pm
Yes there is a culture of fear in America. One that has been created by the likes of Brzezinski.
Comment by joe — Sunday, March 25, 2024 @ 9:19 pm
Dr. Taylor, thank you for finding the article - it was indeed that one.
I agree that it is too early to say exactly what history will say of this man. My uni. training as a historian has always led me to look at world events with a certain detachment and to avoid quickly judging leaders; admittedly, after a very short time experiencing Bush’s realpolitik, my mind was made up. I think it’s because I tend to look at war crimes as being fairly heinous, pretty high up in the list of things that qualify a leader as being “bad”, and together with the initial fabrications and deception it was all just a bit too much to bear. The rest of the Admin’s actions since then - at home and abroad - merely serve to support my viewpoint.
On the other hand, I am sure that Bush has earned his place in the history books.
I am with you regarding the use of fear tactics by the Admin and its results. It was only by playing on people’s abstract fears that the propaganda campaign could be successful.
Mr. Plunk, I think you are probably right about there not being fear “on the streets” regarding terrorism. I remember that once I was walking around in Manchester one afternoon exactly where the IRA let off a bomb precisely 24 hours later. Perhaps strangely, after an initial surprise, the matter practically didn’t cross my mind again.
Regards.
Comment by James — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 8:04 am
As inaccurate as they are, I can live with calling the overall policy the “war on terror” at this point, only because it is too late to go back in time and substitute a new phrase.
I remember when Bush started using this rhetoric immediately after the 9/11 attacks and being amazed that people were not questioning the idiocy of this process of framing.
At its very base it represents a fundamental perversion of the understanding of “war” and is evidence that the reality of the problem is misunderstood.
It was remarkable how much latitude Bush was given following the attacks–he was still the same inexperienced, intellectually weak person on 9/12 as he was on 9/10.
Comment by Ratoe — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 8:07 am
We are not in a struggle of the magnitude of either WWII or the Cold War, yet the administration has pursued its foreign policy (and some of its domestic policy) as if this was the case.
Certainly, but this framing was an absolutely deliberate political strategy, aimed at Democrats, Congress, Western Europe, the free media, and Saddam Hussein and other dictators astride the oil reserves, and not at Al Qaeda.
That the initial response to 9/11 needed to be dramatic and swift I do not deny.
I am not sure what would have been dramatic or swift, or even whether a response best described by those adjectives was necessary or would have been productive, but the policy actually followed was neither.
Indeed, the invasion of Afghanistan and the initial attacks on the leadership of al Qaeda were impressive and, on balance, successful (the final hours of Tora Bora not withstanding).
If one is impressed by the ability of the most dominant military power the world has ever seen to rain terror down from the skies over one of the poorest countries on earth, then, yes, it was “impressive.” But what was “successful” about it? The parenthetical “notwithstanding” clause hardly deserves to be either parenthetical or notwithstanding. That the US military could overthrow a non-state in control of portions of a desperately poor and war-ravaged country was never in doubt. But everything depends on the follow-up, and that we are being told about the looming “spring offensive” by the Taliban shows that this war, like the bigger Bush war that has become the major focus of both major US parties, is being lost.
Unless this country abandons the “war” framing of its policy against Islamist terrorist movements, it will never get out of the hole it has dug for itself. Nor will it deserve to do so. And, I agree wholeheartedly with Ratoe’s comment at 8:27. I had the same feeling the moment Bush grabbed that megaphone and talked about how “they” were going to hear from “us” soon.
Comment by MSS — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 12:02 pm
Can I add one more thing:
It would be mildly amusing–if the realities were not so tragic–that you get standard-bearers of conventional wisdom in US foreign policy like Brzezinski agreeing with the sentiment of the recently-deceased French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard: namely, “The war on terror did/does not take place”!
Comment by Ratoe — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 1:39 pm
I like the OTB take on this - the author gets some points right, but I think he’s stretching it a bit when he says that Americans live in a culture of fear. Now, some politicians live in such a culture, but the country in general is fairly ho-hum about it now.
The attempt that James points out to compaire CAIR and AIPAC are a bit ludicris, though.
Comment by B. Minich — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 2:04 pm
Related to many of these themes, I recommend Berube’s post at Crooked Timber today.
Comment by MSS — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 3:27 pm
Point taken about Afghanistan and Tora Bora specifically–although I would note that at the time there were many nay-sayers about the capacity of anyone, even the US, to successfully invade Afghanistan and oust the government.
Let me specify that the general initial attacks on al Qaeda’s leadership and infrastructure were, on balance, successful. To that degree, I think that there were some policy successes in that initial period.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 4:20 pm
Steven, I do not recall anyone doubting the capacity of outsiders to overthrow the Afghanistani government (such as it was in 2024). There were many who doubted the capacity of outsiders to stabilize a new government favored by the intervention. Those doubts look about right, even if the level of resistance is nowhere near what the Soviets faced.
Successful attacks on specific Al Qaeda sites, I will grant that. But if that was the real goal of the Bush administration, it could have been done, and done more decisively, no later than about 9/15. It wasn’t, and it wasn’t.
By the way, more Brzezinski:
“If the war [i.e. US forces in Iraq] continues without any American willingness to accommodate regionally and to pull out, the Iraq War will be extended to Iran. And if we get involved in a war with Iran, that raises the prospect of a twenty-year-long involvement in protracted violence in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and probably Pakistan. I’m not a prophet, but if the president doesn’t change course, then the more grim prognosis is a likely one.”
(The link is to a forum in Rolling Stone earlier this month, and the quoted passage appears right before the heading “Worst Case Scenario.” Yes, before.)
(Sorry for turning this thread into my own blog. Hey, there’s a though. My own blog!
)
Comment by MSS — Monday, March 26, 2024 @ 6:45 pm
[…] For an example of why the question of how the DoJ is run (and hence why the USA situation is about more than just a few fired attorneys) as well as a good example of why the fear generated by rhetoric over the war on terror matters, I would direct my reader to the following, chilling piece that recently ran in WaPo: My National Security Letter Gag Order. The piece starts as follows: The Justice Department’s inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue “national security letters.” It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2024 and 2024 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision — demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval — to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Fear and Incompetence: The National Security Letters Problem — Monday, April 2, 2024 @ 10:57 am
[…] The motivation for all of these types of positions are clearly terrorism–and it is these types of policy assertions about executive power is why I find the generic idea that we are allowing policy to be too driven by fear to be an accurate one. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Does Giuliani Have a “a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers”? — Tuesday, April 3, 2024 @ 2:57 pm