-Caveat Lector-
from the December 06, 2001 edition - http:/
/www.csmonitor.com/2001/1206/p9s2-coop.html
In an ill-defined war, what next?
By Pam M. Holt
WASHINGTON - With the military side of the war in Afghanistan
going reasonably well, it is time to consider the question: "What
next?"
In what the president calls the Bush Doctrine, he has said the
objective of the war is to end terrorism, but he has never defined
terrorism with much specificity. In a pep talk to the 101st Airborne
Division in Fort Campbell, Ky., a couple of weeks ago, the
president used this definition: "If you harbor terrorists, you are
terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a
terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist...."
This brings back memories of the cold-war definition by analogy of a
communist: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a
duck." This begged the question of what is a communist just as
President Bush begs the question of what is a terrorist.
The president included supporters of terrorism among those incurring
the wrath of the United States. Fair enough. Common sense
tells us that supporting includes providing financing and a safe
haven.
In the Bush definition, does it also include, as has been
suggested, possession or work on development of weapons of mass
destruction - nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons?
Beginning in the depths of the cold war, prevention of the
proliferation
of these weapons was long an objective of US foreign policy.
In this we have largely failed, especially with respect to nuclear
weapons. Are we now going to pursue the nonproliferation goal
through military instead of diplomatic channels?
The 19th-century German military thinker Karl von Clausewitz said that
war is the continuation of politics by other means but do we
want to push it this far? Are we going to make even the possession of
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons a casus belli? If so,
where do we draw the line between countries such as India, Pakistan,
and Taiwan on the one hand and Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North
Korea on the other?
A case can be made for following up Afghanistan in Iraq. The war to
eject Iraq from Kuwait was ended prematurely with an Iraqi
agreement, since broken, to give United Nations inspectors free rein
to search for weapons of mass destruction. With the American
public in a warmaking mood and US military forces in the area, it can
be argued that now is a good time to finish the job. But what
about other countries with such weapons?
Is our war against terrorism aimed only at protecting the US homeland?
Or does it include US interests abroad? Or anybody
anywhere? The president has sometimes hinted at this last definition,
which would make the US the world policeman and the
protector everywhere of those unable to protect themselves - a
daunting assignment far beyond our capabilities. He has also
sometimes limited his doctrine to terrorist organizations, such as Al
Qaeda, with a global reach, or ambitions for a global reach. This
is a considerably more modest goal.
Finally, how do we know when we have won? This is a war unlike any
other.
It has as starkly clear a beginning as Pearl Harbor gave
to US entry into World War II. Although we are confident we know who
started the war on terrorism, they are not as clear targets as the
Japanese, nor are they likely to sign a surrender document. More
likely, they will recede into the mists from which they came. Will we
know this with certainty when or if it happens, or are we doomed to
live indefinitely with the fear of another attack on the scale of
Sept. 11 hanging over us?
And what collateral responsibilities are we assuming? The United
Nations is struggling to put together a new Afghan government, an
effort in which the US must necessarily play a key role. So we find
ourselves once again in nation-building, a task of endless
complexity, and one in which we do not have a good track record.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the cold war 12 years
ago, the United States has been searching for an overall foreign
policy to replace the anti-communism of that era. We may have found
it in antiterrorism, but we have not found a successor to the
cold war's containment policy for dealing with the Soviet Union.
Pat M. Holt is former chief of staff of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Copyright © 2001 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
