One of the two existential threats to modern civilization (apart from catastrophic climate change and widespread ecosystem collapse) is the use of WMD by terrorist groups in a major city or population center. Even if the number of casualties was not exceptionally high, the panic that would ensue and the subsequent events that would transpire as governments did everything in their power to prevent another WMD attack, would fundamentally change the structure of society. Countries would likely become more isolated, freedoms would be curtailed, reprisals on multiple fronts would be undertaken, and the global economy would suffer a deep and prolonged recession. (Even another serious attack on the scale of 9/11, without the use of WMD could have similar, if not as dramatic, consequences).
For these reasons, it is understandable that counter-terrorism is one of the highest priorities for the U.S. and most other Western governments. The Obama Administration has been extremely aggressive in using Special Forces to track down, kill, and disrupt terrorist networks. This strategy is one that many people have advocated (including myself) as preferable to all-out war (a la Iraq and Afghanistan), where civilian casualties are much greater, the unintended consequences much murkier, and the costs, both in blood and treasure, extreme.
But as this New York Times piece highlights, even these less intrusive counter-terrorism efforts that rely on targeted strikes carry with them many risks. For one, the number of countries that we are engaged in continues to grow, and now numbers in the teens, and it is sometimes difficult to know whether we are making things worse, since avoiding civilian casualties and killing the wrong targets is bound to occur. There are also serious legal issues about operating assassination teams in foreign countries, especially when the targets are American citizens (as is one of the most important targets in Yemen).
As citizens we have an obligation to be informed about the acts of war our government prosecutes, because ultimately the blood on the hands of our government is our responsibility. But in a world where so much counter-terrorism is secret (often for good reason), it is extremely difficult for the citizenry to have a solid understanding of all that is taking place in their name.
The bottom line is that there are no easy answers; there is a small minority of violent extremists who will go to great lengths to try to harm the U.S. and its interests. These men will not voluntarily give up, nor would they stop planning attacks if the U.S. all of sudden decided to leave the Middle East and Afghanistan, or if peace broke out between the Israelis and Palestinians. They need to be confronted and defeated, but the question is how, and at what cost.
Despite my lack of military knowledge, the targeted approach, which increasingly relies on unmanned drones and other sophisticated technology, still seems to be preferable to the alternatives. While I think much more work should be done to promote economic development and democracy in the Arab and Muslim world, this is a very long-term project. It is possible that Iraq and Afghanistan may ultimately prove to be models of democracy that will spur larger transformations that weaken the allure of terrorist ideology, but again, this is not only uncertain but only possible way off into the future.
I don’t envy the politicians who have to make the hard choices, because in the fight against terrorism in the 21st century, there are no good options, only bad and worse.
Jason Scorse