Failing to Transition from a War Time Narrative to a Police Narrative Threatens our Security

My mom and I are excited.  24 is coming back.  More importantly, Jack Bauer is coming back.  As much as this feeds my desire for riveting television (don’t worry Homeland, there’s enough love to go around), part of me suspects this second coming of the ultimate counterterrorism show is all the more welcome for the reminder it provides of a time simpler than this one.  Surely history looks better in retrospect (just look at George W. Bush’s current approval ratings), but perhaps it is safe to say that foreign and national security policy were more clear cut when our terror narrative was us versus them.  American freedom is resented by radical Islamists who are plotting to hurt us… right?  Unfortunately, the recent Boston Marathon bombings confirmed what we knew all along.  There is no simple narrative and we certainly aren’t passive victims.

A certain amount of fatigue has set in, with studies showing that the American public accepts living with a base level of terrorist threat.  Though we have been told Al Qaeda is significantly weakened, we also know that we will be fighting myriad terrorists groups for years to come.  Political and philosophical debates will therefore continue; since 9/11 we have struggled with balancing security and civil liberties, with nationality proving to be a particularly tricky subject.  Terrorism can be homegrown, and as we have seen, some of the counterterror techniques we deem admissible for foreign offenders, find us objecting when applied to the holders of blue passports.  Boston was particularly sad in that the terrorists were not outsiders, and in the case of the younger bomber, not even overly radicalized.  To say that today’s terror and counterterror pictures are complex is not helpful nor even that insightful, but then here we are, our policies fragmented and our narrative even more so.

Despite the nontraditional format, the War on Terror began with a narrative of traditional war.  We had an enemy that was contained to a certain area of the world, with a leader that could be named.  We would hunt him and his disciples relentlessly using our military.  This storyline however, has outlived its reality.  With Osama Bin Laden eliminated and Al Qaeda’s main branch significantly weakened, we are left not with a war but with an ongoing police challenge. 

Meanwhile, the US is trying to apply the war narrative to our new task of fighting a much more fragmented enemy in various locations.  Indeed, the Pentagon recently claimed that the threat of terrorism, including Al Qaeda, would continue for decades.  Given this ongoing threat, the US would have the right to intervene anywhere it deemed necessary.  War time assumptions like this one will challenge our resources as well as our security.  Instead, the US must begin to embrace a new narrative, and in turn consistent, surgical, and strategic tactics that will allow for ongoing counterterrorism efforts without exacerbating the threat as time goes on.  If nothing else, our counterterror policy should be first to do no harm.  Latching on to our wartime narrative as we expand our counterterror efforts to new foes and new locations will only make things worse.

Instead, a police narrative (and therefore policies) would emphasize the role of law enforcement agencies at home and abroad.  Coordinated intelligence gathering, evidence, and investigation would lead to arrests and criminal prosecutions.  This would require the cooperation of foreign governments, which could aid in the struggle against terror.  Either way, international law allows action to be taken if a government is uncooperative.  Meanwhile, the use of drones is a perfect example of what it looks like to apply wartime tactics to our new police challenge.  Drone warfare has allowed for progress on the counterterror front by eliminating key personalities.  At the same time, the frequency and latitude with which the US conducts targeted killings are proving to do more harm than good.  It should also be noted that civil liberties would be more likely to suffer under a wartime mentality and would predispose the US to foreign interventions.

Gone are the days of the narrative that made terrorism easy to understand (even if incomprehensible) and television easy to write.  We must ensure that our short term choices do not lead to long term failure.  We can be safe and principled both now and later, but this requires strategy, oversight, and even courage, traits that have been missing from Washington as of late.  The US can improve by abandoning its wartime narrative, thus bringing its more controversial and fragmented policies in line with the country’s values to ensure that we are becoming smarter, safer and more consistent.  The story we have to tell as a nation is more complex than the outset of the War on Terror, but in this way it is also more real.  We cannot remain “at war” with the world and expect to see the threat of terrorism lessen.  Still, as my mom says, it will be nice to have Jack Bauer around again, just for old time’s sake.

Syria Wants to Know Who We Are

One of the largest critiques of American foreign policy is its rampant hypocrisy.  We intervene to save some, stand idle while others perish.  Sometimes our national security interests are all too apparent, sometimes they are all but invisible.  The good news is that we might be learning.  The palpable pause the Administration is taking in responding to Syria might just mean that events like arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the War in Iraq, and the Arab Spring are causing us to consider the long term effects of our short term decisions.  Yet, as I soaked up various perspectives on Syria this week, I found myself looking for consistency in our justifications as much as principles. 

The conflict in Syria presents us with questions that echo to the very core of how we see the world.  Do we intervene?  Should we intervene? What are our reasons?  And perhaps most importantly, are those reasons good enough? 

Realists, Humanitarians, or Both?

It is possible to arrive at the same conclusion using different reasoning, as this week’s crop of op-eds has so aptly proven.  There seem to be two parallel tracks of arguments occurring simultaneously.  Either our course of action (inaction is included in this) in Syria is guided by humanitarian imperatives or it is guided by our own national interests.  The problem is that either line of reasoning can be used to justify either course of action.  If we are motivated to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians by their government then we must intervene if only to stop the killing.  Alternatively, since we value civilian life above all else, we simply cannot intervene to stop the current violence for fear of making it worse.  If our own national security interests top our priority list, then we must intervene to stabilize the situation, hasten the demise of Assad, and guide the new leadership.  Alternatively, for the sake of our own interests, we cannot intervene in the current fight for fear of arming future terrorists or be seen as meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.  Which is it and why?  If we embrace our realist calculations and decide not to intervene, can we ignore the humanitarian impact?  If we decide to say a crime is a crime and intervene to stop the violence, can we continue to stretch ourselves thin after an era of optional intervention?  Whatever the powers that be decide, I hope they ask themselves two questions: does our course of action make sense strategically and can we sleep at night standing by this decision?  In this way, US foreign policy can begin down the path of consistency. 

Nation Building

Syria also asks us to consider our role in foreign revolutions more broadly.  Syria’s sectarian divides are no secret, and allegiance to rebel groups is made all the more complicated by certain ties to Al-Qaeda.  Once again we are faced with an identity crisis.  Are we a proactive role model keen to influence and guide nascent leaders in the way of nation building?  Or are we a nation of realists, libertarians, or at the very least broke and tired citizens weary of telling anyone else what they should do with their own state?  The questions posed here are black and white to be sure, and grey options do exist.  We can do more in the way of foreign aid, assisting civilians still in Syria and refugees overwhelming neighboring countries such as Jordan, but this would be skirting the issue.  If we cannot clearly articulate what happens next and why, then we are destined to continue to amble through these defining moments which can only lead to tragedy in the short term and weakened security in the long term. 

Israel

Many have lamented the fact that Israel’s unilateral actions in Syria have made calculations more complicated for the US.  However, Israel’s actions are largely outside the scope of the conflict.  Yes, the recent Israeli attacks are seen as benefiting the rebels, but this is a side effect.  Israel saw the transfer of “advanced weapons” from Iran via Syria to Hezbollah as unacceptable, so they prevented it.  Some have decried this decision as unnecessary at best and hypocritically entitled at worst.  As of now however, Israel’s actions do not affect the calculations the US must make as the conflict in Syria progresses.  Israel made a decision based on clearly defined national security interests.  Our motives should be equally transparent, be they humanitarian or state-centered.  With any luck, increased transparency will force us to consider the future repercussions of our actions.

On a personal note, I have a hard time thinking that there is something the international community could do to stop useless slaughter and it either can’t or won’t.  This would constitute a structural failure of the international system and should be cause for reflection and amendment.  Some die, others don’t, is not a good enough policy.  That said, what the Administration decides to do next will have a lasting effect on the world’s impression of American foreign policy.  The decision needs to be an honest reflection of our values or interests, whatever they may be.