O'Hanlon-Kagan and the Militarist Dead-End on Terrorism

Michael O'Hanlon and Fred Kagan, who first advocated U.S. preparing military intervention in Pakistan last spring well before the current political crisis of the Musharraf regime, have now taken advantage of that crisis to get their ideas into a New York Times op-ed.

Their piece is the purest expression of the militarist approach to the worldwide problem of jihadism. They conjure up a scenario in which "splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials" and argue that, under those circumstances, "The task of retaking any such regions and reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons would be a priority for our troops."

But how to do it? "Somehow," they suggest, "American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place."

There is just one pesky little problem with that option that the authors fail to acknowledge: Pakistan has systematically refused Bush administration requests for information on where their nuclear weapons are located. The Pakistani military regime is not stupid enough to give the United States the information required to target its nuclear weapons.

That makes their favorite military option - actually the only one they don't essentially out as totally infeasible - completely irrelevant.

But O'Hanlon and Kagan don't stop there. They propose that the United States also make plans for a massive combat role in Pakistan against the jihadists now in control of the tribal provinces bordering Afghanistan. They refer to this option as "supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they [seek] to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership."

And how many troops would be required for this mission? The authors won't go beyond saying that it would be "a sizable combat force -- not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations". In fact, Pakistan is six times larger than Iraq and the jihadist population - securely entrenched in base areas with local and regional governments that fully support them - is orders of magnitude greater than anything encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. So any move toward military involvement in Pakistan would result in an open-ended commitment with no upper limit in sight.

And where would the troops come from? Perhaps O'Hanlon and Kagan have not heard that there might be problem on that front. The U.S. military has already far exceeded the limits of deployments of ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now spending its capital. That's why the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of CENTCOM, Admiral William Fallon are so adamantly opposed to military action against Iran.

Ignoring these practical problems, O'Hanlon and Kagan conclude by suggesting that we must gird ourselves for war in Pakistan, concluding that "volatility in places like Pakistan... is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were", and that "Pakistan may be the next big test."

It even clearer today than it was when they first argued this case that the United States cannot seriously contemplate military intervention in Pakistan. Indeed, given what we now know, their op-ed comes across as a parody of the right-wing militarist approach.

But by unwittingly underlining the irrelevance of military force to the crisis in Pakistan, this stunningly foolish O'Hanlon-Kagan piece should provoke a complete reevaluation of the more basic premise that military power can be and should be a central element in U.S. strategy for reducing the threat of terrorism. If there is no practical military option in a state with nuclear weapons in which the military government is extremely unstable and where the world's largest population of al-Qaeda -linked jihadists operate freely, how could it make sense to contemplate the use of military force anywhere else in the service of a "war against terrorism"? Why prepare to use military force against small groups of jihadists in a given country when this Pakistani safe haven for al Qaeda and millions of its followers is in full swing?

Indeed, why doesn't the clear reality that Pakistan offers no opportunity for using military power against the jihadists invalidate the whole notion of a "war" against terrorism?

The publication of this pathetically weak case for extending that war to Pakistan should be the signal for an assault on the vacuously militarist approach that has dominated the national discourse on dealing with terrorism since 9/11. It is time for a non-militarist alternative that is grounded in reality. (Hint: that alternative should begin with the aim of demonstrating to the Islamic world that the misguided policies of making war against Islamic populations is being quickly and definitely ended.)

And the first target for selling such an alternative should be the Democratic Party's leading presidential candidates, who have shown no indication that they understand that the conventional approach to the problem of jihadist terrorism is a dead end.

Comments

[realpolitic]

Let's invade several South American countries to fight the "war on drugs." And to fight the "war on poverty" we'll invade Alabama, perhaps, and our inner cities. To fight the "war on illiteracy" we'll send the marines to occupy the nation's libraries.

[realpolitic]

Kagen loves war to such an extent he must be masking deep insecurities. Playing high school sports would have helped him conquer his inadequacies or, at least, an occasional game of touch football.

[realpolitic]

O'Hanlon and Kagen may be right! Although we have few troops left to deploy, perhaps we can use the Salvation Army. With the right training, they may be formidable. If we invade Pakistan and Iran, then together with Iraq and Afghanistan, we occupy the whole region. As our experience in Iraq shows, they will love us. Perhaps we can annex this region to be the 51st state of the union and we can name it Kagenistan or O'Hanlonistan.

[lgillooly]

Until we all realize that 19 homicidal maniacs on 9/11 succeeded in making us all fearful sheep and allowed a Neocon group to do whatever it wanted to "protect us" we will continue down this disastrous path.
The smart thing to do is have world wide Terrorist detectives from each country. Flush them out and take them out. Wars are counterproductve unless OIL is what you really want to flush out.Wake Up America!!

[gettysburg]

God help us all.

[Overd0g]

A "war on terrorism" is just as silly as a "war on poverty".

[Doofus]

Gosh, who would have thought that conquering
Afghanistan & Iraq could create such an unstable
mess in Southeast Asia? Once Pakistan falls apart,
surely only another half-dozen US Army divisions
will sort things out. What will India & China have to
say about that? Maybe India will seek to regain
its former provinces. Maybe Pakistan's close ally
China will object. Discuss!

(George Bush continues to amaze, no?)

[Kirby]

The Do-Gooder Leftists, sometime Neo-Con Batch of Idiots have now got another country twisted like the results of quasi-diahrea, that is, this is just another result of this so-called preemptive war, which has ended up being the cat call for spreading democracy and freedom on the political pita bread of the Middle East. Makes me want to puke.

Had we only left well enough alone.

[messy]

Well, surrender doesn't seem to work either. It just encourages them. Pakistan has played a double game. They nearly started Nuclear wars TWICE and have been giving out bomb technology like it was candy on Eid.

Something has to be done.

[taikan]

Terrorism is a tactic, not a country or a defined group of people. Therefore, a "war on terrorism," as a concept, makes no sense. It does, however, seem to make a pretty catchy slogan. Although a catchy slogan may be useful in the field of marketing or in the related field of political campaigning, it has little if any use in actually resolving problems, particularly complicated problems involving terrorists and countries having nuclear weapons.
Like a catchy slogan, which is useful in some limited circumstances but which cannot be used to resolve most problems, the military also has limited usefulness in dealing with terrorists.
There is no doubt that the American military has no equal in the world, and is capable of defeating any military opponent that it can find. However, terrorists usually are difficult to find and do not act like a typical military opponent operating on a battlefield. On those few occasions when a recognizable group of them come out in the open, they are relatively easily handled by the military. But for the most part, terrorists hide their identities and/or locations. Therefore, it takes the equivalent of detective work to determine who they are and to find them, and the military in general is not well suited to performing detective work. That's why, even if the military had the available resources, it would make no sense to send the military into Pakistan.

[research]

Why don't you say it:

BushCo by not stopping Bin Laden, and by allying with Pakistan has set the stage for a nuclear armed Taliban!

[hoopoe]

"that alternative should begin with the aim of demonstrating to the Islamic world that the misguided policies of making war against Islamic populations is being quickly and definitely ended"

exactly. it has become terrifyingly clear that the people in charge of this 'war on terror' fiasco - and those who aspire to take charge of it in '08 - haven't the slightest grasp of the complex roots or aims of terrorism and those who employ it as a tactic. we're still trying to 'fight fire with fire' so to speak, and it's only causing it to spread.

until we get a grip on the reality of the situation, and realize that our militaristic 'intervention' is not only useless in this context but also precisely the oxygen this fire needs to keep burning, we're going to continue to exacerbate the problem.

our policymakers and those calling for more aggression need to take a collective deep breath and count to ten before they do or say anything else stupid. or maybe they just need a cold shower.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

But these are serious people. Genuinely serious adult people. And hardheaded serious people never advocate anything except military solutions because those are the only serious solutions. Because what really matters to people like this is looking serious. Very ,very serious. Not solutions that seem to be working or solutions that make logistical sense but serious solutions. Because nobody who isn't a dirty damned hippies would advocate anything but serious solutions. Then other learned people will cluck their toungues and declare what serious people they are and how they really aren't dirty damned hippies.. Then they will gather their serious ruminations into a serious book that Regnery will sell in bulk fo pennies on the dollar because they are so serious.
Very ,Very serious.
And certainly not hippies. That's very important.

[RumiSouth]

But violence just feels so good, so American... When we are afraid, we want to see things blow up. That's what happens on TV, after all. And we want the TV reality we expect, not the actual reality that's hard to understand.

Nobody wants a pansy Democrat who talks about peace and love and understanding. They might as well hold hands with Osama himself and sing "Kumbayah." So what we'll get are Demo frontrunners doing their best to seem tough.

[outnow]

O'Hanlon and Kagan do not understand the concept of diplomacy or the limits on the use of military force. The Pakistan nukes are secure. This is a big secret. By declaring war against a religion Bush has created a vicious cycle of recruiting for militants. There are great profits in this constant war-mongering. We must engage all people world-wide or we will create more opposition to the US hegemony agenda, which is not that secret.

The concept of effective international law and power-sharing would destroy the blind ambitions of the neocons - maybe just in time. Our biggest threat is from within. It is high time we all realize that false patriotism is a clever disguise for the profiteering of the war-mongers. Rep. Jack Murtha decried the lack of credibility of the Pentagon only yesterday. President Eisenhower warned us in his farewell speech.

I wish the Democrats were not in cahoots with the war party.