IP: Philip Wilcox on U.S. strategic response to terrorism

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "C. M. Colee" <cmcolee () iadfw net>
> To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14636
>
> The New York Review of Books
> October 18, 2001
> The Terror
> By Philip C. Wilcox Jr.
> The author, a retired US Foreign Service officer, served as US Ambassador at
> Large for Counterterrorism between 1994 and 1997.
>
> <snip>
> But on the rare occasions that the US has tried to carry out military
> attacks on terrorist targets, the attacks have failed or backfired. The US
> bombing of Tripoli in 1986, after a Libyan terrorist attack on Americans in
> Germany, killed dozens of Libyan civilians. Qaddhafi struck back in 1988 by
> bombing Pan American Flight 103, killing 270 people. Also, US cruise missile
> attacks on targets in Sudan and Afghanistan after the bombing of American
> embassies in East Africa in 1998 had no discernible effect on terrorism and
> provoked widespread international criticism.
>
> In contrast to Bush's civilian hawks, many American military officers are
> skeptical about using military force against terrorists. They point out that
> a target like Bin Laden, who is thought to be hiding in the mountains of
> Afghanistan, probably could not be hit from the air and that his physical
> "infrastructure" is negligible. Moreover, abducting or killing him with US
> ground forces, especially in such a remote and hostile environment, presents
> grave intelligence as well as tactical and logistical challenges. A better
> approach would be a concerted international effort, with carefully
> calculated pressures and incentives-and cooperation from Pakistan, which is
> essential-to persuade Bin Laden's Taliban hosts to hand him over for trial.
> He is already under a previous US indictment. Bombing the Taliban to make
> them give up Bin Laden might kill innocents and would probably fail.
>
> <snip>
>
> The US must also realize that, notwithstanding our great power, indeed
> because of it, we cannot dictate respect and cooperation. Other nations will
> not fully help us in combating terrorism, whatever pressures we apply,
> unless we are sensitive to their legitimate interests and are willing to
> reciprocate. Certainly the US should reappraise its policies concerning the
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq, which have bred deep anger against
> America in the Arab and Islamic world, where much terrorism originates and
> whose cooperation is now more critical than ever. We can do all this without
> abandoning our basic commitments, including to the security of Israel.
>
> We should also search for ways to strengthen the common bonds between
> Western values and Islam to combat the notion of a "clash of civilizations"
> and to weaken the Islamist extremist fringe that hates the West and supports
> terrorist actions. Such new departures in US foreign policy would require
> devoting far greater resources to support a more engaged, cooperative, and
> influential American role abroad. Redefining national security and
> counterterrorism in this broader sense is the most promising way to fight
> the war against terrorism. It is vital that we do this soon, now that the
> stakes have been raised so high.
>
> eom



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/