America’s Purpose
Terrorism, security and Americas Purpose: Towards a More
Comprehensive Strategy
September 6-7th 2005
Personal notes (rough with typos)
Steve.whittaker@bt.com
Bipartisan conference run by New America foundation




Videos and support material at http://www.americaspurpose.org/
Short video at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/09/09/VI2005090901256.html
Reports from working groups http://www.americaspurpose.org/working_group_summaries.pdf
White papers from working group members http://www.americaspurpose.org/working_group_papers.pdf
Key focus


Where are we 4 years after 9-11 – and where should we go
What should US policy be post-GWOT (Global War on Terror)
Attendees/speakers incl

George Soros

Wes Clark

Ted Sorenson

Chuck Hagel

Madeleine Albright

Ex-acting director CIA John McLaughlin

Francis Fukuyama
Led by steve clemons http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
Key strands


















US zeitgeist and policy are more driven by events than most Europeans assume – Katrina (upto10k thought dead, collapse
of civil order, under-funding, inability to deal with well predicted emergency etc) have stunned America and could become
a bookend to post-911 policy
Sense that Katrina, Abu Ghraib, renditions and the worsening situation in Iraq have changed the presumption of American
power and moral superiority at home and abroad - US actions are losing the war of hearts and minds
Sense that a new political and social consensus is needed
Sense that the post 9-11 moratorium on debate and dissent has passed – need to rekindle robust public discourse
Sense that the framing of the conflict as a military Global War on Terror has been inadequate and focus on war rather than
policing and soft power has been counter productive
Are Iraq and Katrina the ‘sputnik moments’ in understanding the current failure of consequence management?
American exceptionalism is a key explicit element of current official hegemonic foreign policy but is widely distrusted by
the rest of the world
No consensus as to whether US hegemony will continue for coming decades or whether we are at a tipping point
Conflict between values based and realism/pragmatism based foreign policy
Strongest applause were for Wes Clarke and Anne-Marie Slaughter demanding accountability of senior officials for Abu
Ghraib
Feeling that DHS has failed and FEMA/coast guard may need to be split back-out
New international law needed to define treatment and rights of non-uniformed, non-state prisoners
Several comments that disenfranchised European Muslim population could become major source of post-AQ jihadi
terrorism and that mosques are being replaced by fragmented online communities as centres of islamist discourse
Offshore balancing is being re-floated as a strategic option
Need to lead by example
+ve notes on change balanced by uncritical review of successes by key new administration appointee Zarete
Some obvious positioning by moderate republican and democratic speakers in advance of 2008 election primaries
Is Islamism a response to globalization (in Islam many things are given and national boundaries are downplayed –
globalization is forcing people to chose new identities – similar effect to Bolshevism and National Socialism)
Page 1 of 19
Page 2 of 19
America’s Purpose ____________________________________________________________________ 1
Terrorism, security and Americas Purpose: Towards a More Comprehensive Strategy ______________ 1
September 6-7th 2005 __________________________________________________________________ 1
Key strands __________________________________________________________________________ 1
Day 1 _______________________________________________________________________________ 4
What American’s should see in a road map to confronting terrorism________________________ 4
Building a New Consensus ___________________________________________________________ 5
The Grievance Challenge : Confronting the Political Dimensions of Terrorism _______________ 6
Lunch Talks_______________________________________________________________________ 7
Non-democratic states as Allies in the struggle against terrorism ___________________________ 8
Provocations – Thoughts on Reframing the Terrorism Challenge __________________________ 10
Norms under stress – is there a civil liberties trade-off in fighting terrorism? And what of the
Debate on Rendition, Interrogationa and Detentions ____________________________________ 11
Dinner talk _________________________________________________________________________ 12
Americas Purpose and the Global Struggle against terrorism _____________________________ 12
Day 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 13
Thoughts on America’s Terrorism Challenge __________________________________________ 13
American Nightmares vs Opportunities: The dilemma of the last sovereign _________________ 13
America Engaged in the World and the war on terror: Principles Leaders Can Agree On: The
Release of the Eminent Persons Statement on Terrorism _________________________________ 14
A conversation: America’s Purpose and Challenges _____________________________________ 15
Report from the five expert working groups ___________________________________________ 15
Working Group : Underlying causes of terrorism - Loiuse Richardson_______________________ 15
Working Group : Confronting Terrorism - Hon Richard Hutching __________________________ 15
Working Group : Homeland Security and Freedom – Suzanne Spalding _____________________ 16
Working Group : America’s Grand Strategy – Charles Kupchan ___________________________ 16
Working Group : Promoting Democracy – Michael McFaul_______________________________ 16
Benchmarking America’s Response Top Terrorism: Where we’ve been… Where we have to go 17
The Challenge of Balance: How Terrorism and the Response can undermine a society ________ 17
An Offshore Discussion of Americas Terrorism Debate __________________________________ 18
Page 3 of 19
Day 1
James Fellows (NAF and Atlantic Monthly)




2 ½ disasters since 2000
1. September 11 2001
2. Katrina – greatest natural disaster in US history
3. Management of the post-war in Iraq
State of US is radically different from eo 2001.
o
150k troops deployed vs. 10k
o
Vague enemy vs. clear enemy
o
Global suspicion vs. global support
o
Record deficit vs. record surplus
Opportunity for a using global goodwill post-9-11 to take a broad view of Americas’ future was squandered
Real change requires 3 things:
1. Sense among the public that change is needed
2. Set of new ideas
3. Political leaders
Stephen Heinz (Rockefeller Brothers Trust)




What has ‘war on terrorism’ done?
o
Changed publics perception about vulnerability
o
Changed US relationships
What it hasn’t done?
o
Answered the question as to what is America’s new purpose
By default, ‘the war on terror’ has become the purpose, and the public are increasingly uncomfortable with viewing
everything through the lens of war.
AQ is planning strategically, US is coping from crisis to crisis.
What American’s should see in a road map to confronting terrorism
Richard Medley
Iraq has changed the way that the US and the world think about US capabilities.
Hon Jane Harman (House select committee on intelligence)






Katrina showed a complete breakdown of US consequence management system.
Very similar to a WMD – and we had 3 days of immediate warning, and years of general warning.
2001 – AQ was centralized, now the new threat is ‘franchised’ and distributed
We’ve been slow to recognize importance of the Internet to Jihadists.
o
Communications
o
Broadcast and distribution
We won’t win by military means – we will only win by winning the argument with the next generation of potential
terrorists.
What has been our most successful counter-terrorism act?
o
Military tsunami relief
George Soros (Soros fund management)






Need to challenge the basic tenet as ‘the war on terror’.
GWOT – has not made us safer and has taken our attention away from other pressing issues.
War as counter-terrorism (c.f. traditional wars) runs disproportionate risk of civilian casualties while hunting an invisible
enemy.
State of war undermines the critical processes of running the nation including suspension of criticism of leaders (which
allowed invasion of Iraq, run up of deficit, rendition etc) and loses the moral high ground.
GWOT has led to an unprecedented fall in US prestige and capability worldwide.
Madrid club formulated 3 points for a new doctrine http://www.clubmadrid.org/
1. Terrorism is multifaceted and difficult to generalize – except that all terrorists kill civilians for political goals.
Page 4 of 19
2.

In dealing with terrorists you must avoid doing what they do by avoiding innocent casualties and must stay
inside the law even if the law must change.
3. Must foster democratic mechanisms to enable real debate of legitimate grievances.
US is the worlds strongest nation – no external enemy can destroy it. It is only its own behavior and response which can
undermine the preeminence
Hon Mitchell Reiss (state dept and vp William and Mary)
GWOT has 3 elements
1.
2.
3.
Offence – taking the war to the enemy
Defence – homeland security
Hearts and minds
Key points
1. US is very poor at helping moderate to put over an alternative view without undermining their local credibility
2. Not building intellectual capacity for the long haul e.g. language and regional expertise – post sputnik there was limitless
money for Russian programs – now very little funding available for high level Arabic training and regional
3. War on terror will continue to cause transatlantic rifts
4. Public diplomacy is broken
a.
Security concerns make it very hard for consulates to engage
b. Foreign service officers have wrong value sets and metrics (e.g. not encouraged to become deep regional
specialists)
c.
We shouldn’t expect the world to like us – answer is to ruthlessly tell the truth and stamp down on false rumors
d. Foreigners like America but hate its policies.
e.
Need to reach out to private sector who specialize in putting over messages
Hon James Steinberg (Brookings, former national security adviser)





If you want a good answer, you need to ask the right question. GWOT is the wrong question.
Its not terrorism per se which has driven US behavior and policy
Is it militant Islam? Is there such as monolithic idea as militant Islam?
If so, do we only care about militant Islam only in the context of terrorism, or do we need a more sophisticated approach to
the range of underlining concerns.
Public diplomacy doesn’t help if core policies encourage the conflict and radicalization.
Rita Hauser (RAND)




Why do we insist on having the debate from the perspective that it’s only a US problem?
US has turned its back on organizations which it has spent decades setting up.
Terror is only one of the crises which the US will face which will require partnerships (e.g. pandemics, global warming
etc).
More general issue that the US refuses to draw on the expertise of others (example of New Orleans levees vs. Dutch
dykes).
Hon Roger Cressey (ex national security council and president’s critical infrastructure protection board)











What is the state of AQ and the AQ, or global movement, Sunni militancy?
o
Intent – well accepted
o
Capability – very poor knowledge?
Now dealing with a very broad threat – as AQ declines, the global Sunni militant movement will grow and be harder to
counter.
Many Saudi’s drawn to Iraq are mudjahadeen first and AQ supporters second
Iraq will be seen as the war of unintended consequences.
Individuals such as AZ have morphed from local thug to international threat
Iraq is helping jihaddi’s to hone their skills what will they do when they go home?
Western Muslim populations seen as a major issue
Where is the next KSM being trained?
How do you put together a roadmap that targets e.g. Hezbollah’s own TV station in the war of hearts and minds
Its ok for people to be PO’d at America but how do we avoid them becoming activists?
How do we deal with Iran’s support for terrorism as the nuclear crisis develops.
Building a New Consensus
Page 5 of 19
Hon Joe Biden (D-DE)




Two intertwined challenges
1. Battle between freedom and radical fundamentalism
2. We need to manage the world’s most dangerous weapons
US is more isolated and more alone than ever before and hence less secure.
Key role of values which have taken a back seat since 9-11
Three key strands
1. Rebuilding effective alliances
o
Neo-con disengagement predicated on differential strength of US military – alliances are a
hindrance.
o
It is now quite clear that this is not the case.
o
Collaboration means that rules and norms have to be enforced
o
Current philosophy that preemption is the dominant doctrine encourages rogue states to obtain
WMD and other countries to use preemption as well – reducing stability and increasing risks.
o
Will need new international alliances of police, customs and intelligence to e.g. stop and search
cargos at sea.
2. Forging a prevention strategy to defuse problems before they explode (whilst retaining the right to act)
o
If US moves to prevention rather than preemption – US allies need to accept that US can use force
when necessary and must get tougher with shared threats.
o
Containment and deterrence will still be important, but less useful with non-state actors.
o
Are there circumstances when nations forfeit their sovereignty e.g. during genocide?
e.g. does that apply to undemocratic states that develop WMD
o
What would this new framework be?
o
Debate recently starting (Biden in Europe recently)
3. Reforming undemocratic states
o
Issue is much more pressing that before
o
Must refocus on economic stabilization, education, disease
o
Need to return to nation building – prepare in advance for post-conflict reconstruction
o
Must build alliances for e.g. post-conflict policing – which was squandered with Iraq.
o
Liberal democracies don’t tend to attack each other
o
The Grievance Challenge : Confronting the Political Dimensions of
Terrorism
Robert Kuttner (The American prospect)





Could Katrina mark the end of the post 9-11 era?
We did this ourselves rather than it being done to us
The media has moved from its recent self censorship
There has been a fear of being unpatriotic
Impolite questions can now be asked
Robert Pape (author of ‘dying to win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism’)


9-11 link of suicide terrorism to radical islam led to a public belief that only wholesale reform of arab countries will solve
the problem. Suicide bombing is a product of radical islam.
Is this true?
o
Study 462 suicide terrorists who completed their mission since 1980

>50% were secular

>95% have specific goal – for democratic countries to withdraw combat forces from homelands of
territories which they prize – NOT RELIGION
(e.g. OBL’s statements, London bodies)

>50% of AQ suicide bombers are Saudi (12% Moroccan)

AQ suicide terrorists ?10x as likely to come from Sunni countries with US combat presence than
those without

=> US military stationing probably led to 9-11 and is that major driver
o
UK home office 2004 4-volume survey

8-13% of UK Muslims believe that more attacks against US and UK are needed

No 1 reason is Iraq
o
AQ published 2003 plan (found by Norwegian intelligence
http://www.mil.no/felles/ffi/start/article.jhtml?articleID=71589 ) explains strategy to not attack US but to
focus on Spain (before its election) then UK in order to peel US of its military allies.
o
Example of Hezbollah – had all of the ambitions of e.g. AQ, but once foreign troops left Lebanon, Hezbollah
became a predominantly political organization
o
Suicide campaigns depend on walk-in volunteers – who tend to dry up when the enemy leaves
Page 6 of 19

Conclusions
o
AQ should be the US’ principle focus
o
Responsibility for Iraq should be passed to Iraqi’s to prevent it being the next excuse
o
Gulf strategy should be returned to ‘off-shore balancing’ – troops offshore ready to deploy rather than stationed
on land
Nick Rosen (author ‘letter from Falluja’)





Falluja has become a metaphor in other radicalized areas such as Mogadishu.
Terrorism is a tool of policy, not a thing in its own right.
Most terrorists (esp. foot soldiers) are motivated by their own oppression or the documented oppression of others
OBL although from a privileged background identifies with the oppressed
AQ’s cadre is unusual in being ideologues hating Jews and westerners – even if their foot soldiers are motivated by
oppression
Yosri Fouda (al Jazeera - interviewed KSM and RB – London based)







AQ as an organization has been destroyed
AQ as a mindset survives and thrives
Facts of US policy are probably less important than the perceptions of the policies
US has lost the moral high-ground and the impact is still playing out
Millennium bomber (Ahmed Rassam caught at the Canadian border) claims he didn’t know anyone in AQ – just one friend
in Afghanistan and rang to ask whether they would like the credit
Really important that we haven’t found a workable definition of terrorism.
KSM told his interrogators that 9-11 wasn’t about the US, it was about the Arab governments.
Andrew Kohout (Pew)

Pew Global Attitudes Project (2005 results)
o
% people believe that suicide bombing is justified declined in many muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan 41% ->
25% - although growing in Jordan)
o
Perhaps driven by recent experience of terrorism in those countries
o
+ve views of OBL declining – although growing in Pakistan
o
Support for OBL is mostly an general anti-American feeling
o
+ve US actions help e.g. pro-US feeling recovered from recent lows after Tsunami aid
o
Increasing feeling in many Muslim countries that fundamentalism is a threat to their countries
o
Evidence of a strengthening demand for local democracy and that US supports democracy in their countries
Michael Lind (NAF)







The enemy is not Islam – it’s Jihadism
Terrror is a tactic – can be tackled as any other war crime
Jihadism feeds on real justifications – many dating back to European colonialism and e.g. Russian invasion of
Afghanistan
Many of the conflicts go back a long way
o
E.g. Chechens have been fighting the Russians since the 19C
o
E.g. Philipino Muslims were promised their independence by America and then handed over to a united
Philipino government
Jihadism is trying to link conflicts together into a fundamentalist whole
Intervention in the Balkans prevented it becoming a rallying point for the Jihaddi’s as was beginning to happen.
Democracy and national autonomy are closely aligned – US should be supporting autonomy and self determination for
Muslim minorities.
Lunch Talks
Gen Wes Clark (ex NATO Supreme Allied Commander)


Lots has been achieved since 9-11

innumerable plots have been stopped

there is no safe haven at the scale of Afghanistan

US has not been hit since
But its not yet clear who’s winning

Acts are up e.g London, Madrid, Saudi

Taliban are resurgent

Pentagon always knew that it couldn’t win in Afghanistan with the forces which could be deployed – needed to
prepare for bigger business e.g. Iraq
Page 7 of 19






WMD proliferation not really addressed e.g. administration didn’t prepare for non-proliferation treaty renewal
NBT

250 incidents in north Caucasus last year

Russian activity in Caucasus still acts as a magnet
‘This is no time to ‘stay the course’ – its time to – ‘ change the course’
1. Need to change over-reliance on military action – this is not the 2nd world war, need to move away from
military deployment as a symbol of security. Need to move away from war as being the first response.
2. Ideology is key –

must understand the people we’re trying to reach – need to understand why our enemies and
potential enemies think the way they do. Role of 1930’s book by Eric Hoffa (explaining what really
went on inside communist regimes) in undermining the political appeal of communism in US –
beginning to see some people in the Arab world trying to use ideology to diffuse militancy – we
should be looking harder for these people

Grievances – we need to remove the props which provide a recruiting ground e.g. we need to end the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Democracy – need to support countries trying to move towards democracy.

Russia – we need to engage with Chechnyan and North Caucasus crises

Abu Graib etc – people at the highest level need to be brought to account

Renditions are not such a good idea! They don’t work and they undercut our credibility with our
friends.
3. Deal sensibly with Iraq

need a strategy for success – not just putting the pressure on the military – the same mistake as
Nixon in Vietnam

Need to being Iraq’s neighbors into the discussion and find common interest – none of its neighbors
really want a civil or regional war. Needs a regional dialogue to defuse the situation and keep Iraq
together before its pulled apart by its neighbors

Have to decide – can the US win or should it come home?
4. New framework for security and collaboration

need to strengthen international organizations so that military force is not the only option –
especially nuclear weapons
5. Katrina has shown that the homeland security problem has not been solved. Border’s are not secure. Need a
proper civil defense organization

Need to de-conflict the military, national guard and emergency services – currently too many first
responders get called up – became a problem in Katrina
6. You can’t win a war on terror by diminishing freedoms at home
Q. how should we train our leaders

A. Effective training needs to train in the face of system failure – much of our training is not tough enough
Q. Is an orderly retreat from Iraq needed?

A. No – it would be a fighting withdrawal. The insurgents will claim they won. Retribution will start
(500k+ fatalities?). Political process would fail – civil war would lead to regional war. Better course is to
build regional collaboration.
Q. Does there need to be an institutional review of the state department?

A. Its not likely to be more successful than the intelligence or defense reviews – the real issue is that how
the system fits together, how policy makers use the agencies of government.
Very much a political stump speech
Tom Clancy (author)






Key issue is to understand the world through the other guys eyes
Never underestimate the opportunities to screw up
Never underestimate the venality of people – Ted Bundy killed because he liked it. OBL likes to be in charge
The Israelis and the Palestinians are in a competition to see who can be dumbest
The best way for the Palestinians to beat Israel would be to make pace – in 10 years Israel would self destruct on political
grounds
The Israelis need to integrate the Palestinians into the economic system – people with a stake don’t riot.
Non-democratic states as Allies in the struggle against terrorism
Dmitri Simes (Nixon Center)






Allies are not necessarily friends
Nuclear threats are apocalyptic
An attack on DC would destroy DC but it would also change - our sense of purpose, our civil liberties etc
Hence we may have to work with unsavory allies
How should we think about spreading democracy?
You must let other countries chose their own way
Page 8 of 19

But, there are still limits to sovereignty e.g. in the face of genocide
Flynt Leverett (Brookings etc)







Turkey may be a good template
It was a key US ally even though there were severe reservations about its behaviors
If it had been ignored, it may have chosen different friends and perhaps kicked off a reactionary wave through the region,
rather than begin its journey to democracy
Nationalism and democracy are closely linked
The imposition of democratic institutions which fail national pride and national interest rarely works (e.g. inter-war
Weimar) – not promising for Iraq and Afghanistan
Only successful example of rapid democratization is post-soviet eastern Europe – but then there were national interests in
aligning with the west in order to get away from Russia
Must remember that democracies can fail – one way is by failing to have an open discussion on foreign policy concerns
Kenneth Roth (human rights watch)








“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. “
Winston Churchill
Timing of Iraq invasion indicates that the US administration does not take the threat of Jihadism seriously
Two categories of non-democratic countries we need to think about
o
Those we have relationships with (e.g. Saudi)

we need a very explicit conversation with them about what they can do to help and a very explicit
discussion about, and defense of, the real strategic value of the relationship

Without both, they have no incentive
o
Those we don’t (e.g. Iran and Syria)
Massive missed opportunities post 9-11 e.g.
o
Syria approached with high quality intelligence (which turned out to save American lives,
o
Iran offered assistance in political reconstitution in Afghanistan (was essential for success of Bonn conference –
their reward was to be labeled as a member of the axis of evil)
o
These could have been leveraged to help to normalize relationships
At a time when middle eastern feeling is increasingly anti-American and islamist – is now really the time to push people
into ballot boxes? Likely to undermine GWOT
US should be stronger in building human rights in the middle-east not necessarily democracy – yet
Pushing democracy WILL NOT NECESSARILY optimize the resources available for GWOT
Should think more strategically about key bi-lateral relationships
Michael McFaul (Stanford)







Realism tends to encourage you to chose unsavory allies – but does it work?
Taking the pressure off them allows them to just rename what they do as part of GWOT e.g. Russia in Chechnya
US is currently only country that has an announced policy using of cruel and degrading treatment (but only for nonnationals overseas)
Three categories
o
Hard core terrorists – you have to use military or police tools
o
Peaceful – who would never take up arms
o
Swing vote – who could you go either way
How are we doing with the swing vote?
o
Not well according to Pew results
We also need popular cooperation …
o
And we’re losing that
Why are we losing ground
o
Lack of open societies

Cannot expect overnight democratization – but need to encourage governments to be responsive to
its people
o
US policies

US should have withdrawn from Uzbekistan as an unsuitable ally before we were thrown out

Support for Israel in the occupied territories

Guantanamo and Abu Graib – substandard legal standards and torture

Allowing the Russians to get away with Chechnya

Bush threatened to veto $450B defense bill because of McCain amendment ensuring that US
interrogation be governed by US army manual
Page 9 of 19
Provocations – Thoughts on Reframing the Terrorism Challenge
Gerold Yonas (Sandia ex DoD SDI)




Terrorism is a complex adaptive problem
Its also a ‘wicked problem’ – when you work on it, you change the problem
o
Political motivations
o
Religious justifications
o
Economic sustainment
o
Military and technical
3 stages
o
Preparation

Look at the threat

Commited

Active supporters

Passive supporters

… we just don’t know how many
o
Preperation
o
Response
High leverage technologies
o
Sensors

Stand-off and detect trace amounts
o
IT

Faint signals in noisy environments
o
decision support technology – likely to be the most important

high stress, key decisions in short timescales
Diego Hidalgo (FRIDE)

Overviewed outputs of club of Madrid http://www.clubmadrid.org/
Richard Vague (First USA Bank, Juniper capital)





Where does growth in terror comes from
o
Disenfranchisement and economic exclusion
o
Loss of pride following military defeat
Most radical movements have affluent leaders (e.g. communism, civil rights etc)
Religious fundamentalism is always the response to rapid change
GWOT is likely to cost >$1Trillion – is this the way you would spend $1 Trillion?
Next conference – ‘Beyond Bullets’
Stephen Walt (Harvard)







The GWOT is not going well
Logic of recent policy has been to wave a big stick and convince potential supporters of terror that it was a bad idea
We have put little emphasis on ‘draining the swamp’
Need to focus on WMD terrorism
Low level terrorism is bad but manageable - since 9-11 14k people killed by terrorism and 34k injured
Need to return to grand strategy of off-shore balancing
o
Don’t need to hold vital areas – just need to make sure you’re enemies don’t
o
Rely on local allies and local balance and only intervene when we have to
Need a global agreement on nuclear weapons perhaps a ‘grand agreement’
o
If we need support from the rest of the world on nuclear issues
o
We need radical reduction of US nuclear stocks (which are not really needed at their current scale)
Juliette Kayyem (KSG)



Is the criminal law approach to dealing with terrorism inadequate?
o
Do we need a new legal framework for terrorism beyond Guantanamo and detention
o
The current approach to allow the commander-in-chief to trump anything is obviously failing
o
What types of interrogation should be allowed, against who, supervised by who and with what reporting
o
Is there a small set of people for whom the old rules are not enough?
Do we need a framework for ‘acceptable civil losses’?
o
Katrina showed that we don’t currently have one
o
Can we be all things to all people?
What do we do now that Iraq and GWOT are now intertwined
Page 10 of 19
o
o
o
o
We have to deal with the iraq we created?
What are we really concerned about?
Has a WMD event not happened because we cleared out Afghanistan and destroyed the Taliban/AQ base? If so,
we don’t want Iraq to be the next safe haven
And Afghanistan is not really subdued – outside of Kabul, the situation is degrading and it could become a safe
haven again
from the floor

Q. If it’s about what we do not who we are, do we need a political settlement with militant Islam or OBL?

A. Its not impossible, but there are some people who we could never negotiate with e.g. OBL – and terror is a tool not a
belief

Q. Would offshore balancing work if e.g. Saudi falls?

A. Its better than going into Saudi

Q. Is jihadism really an economic or religious issue

A. In situations of economic distress, fringe elements and terrorism get more followers – fundamentalism and radicalism is
usually a response to economic stress

Q. What about our own extremists e.g. Tom Delay and hastening Armageddon

A. There is a real minority in the US who believe that the GWOT is a step towards the second coming (e.g. Tom Delay)
Norms under stress – is there a civil liberties trade-off in fighting
terrorism? And what of the Debate on Rendition, Interrogationa and
Detentions
Michael Barone (US News and world report)

2nd world war
o
Not many prisoners were taken in the pacific theatre
Daniel Sutherland (DHS)

Civil liberties and security are not a tradeoff

We can improve security and protect liberty – there will be tensions but it does not need to be a tradeoff

DHS’ role should be to protect US values as well as US assets

Sometimes times of real stress precipitate key human rights progress e.g. WWII and later desegregation of the military

Should we take this an opportunity to build some major steps for the future?
Anne-Marie Slaughter (Dean of Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton)










Excellent speech
See similar Princeton project (Princeton project on national security) http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/
Should US have a realist or values based policy?
Current administration claims a value based, purpose based foreign policy but Abu Graib and Guantanamo have entirely
undermined US claims to be upholding liberty and equality
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo imply that even the most basic protections can be withdrawn from suspected terrorists e.g. to
know the charges, indefinite imprisonment without trial
While we say that they apply only to suspected terrorists but Muslims interpret them as targeted as Muslims
Abu Ghraib will continue to shame the US until the senior officials responsible have been brought to account
Constitution does have provision for president to suspend Hebeas Corpus – Lincoln did so but had to go back to congress
to report on it.
Need a new protocol to the Geneva Convention to deal with non-state detainees
Need to change and enhance law rather than ignore it.
Grover Norquist (Americans for tax reform, NRA etc)






Hard for the US to discuss limiting freedoms as it’s a country based on individual freedoms (its been easy for countries like
France and Spain because they’re different… ?)
The US is strong because it has a constitution with checks and balances
We should live our values rather than behave like our enemies
o
e.g. we shouldn’t try to get Qatar to shut down Al Jazeera when it says something we don’t like
We should have sunset provisions on emergency legislation such as patriot act, RICO (complaining about use of RICO
against anti-abortion activists)
Historically the ACLU has acted as a check on the right – but now that there is no opposition (republican house, president
and senate), the right needs its own civil rights movement to check its own excesses
Federal law needs sliming down (>4k federal crimes but no-one really knows)
Page 11 of 19
Brig Gen James Cullen (ex- Chief Judge, court of criminal appeals, US Army)








Very harsh criticism of administrations treatment of prisoners
Positive US treatment of prisoners of war established by Washington during the war of independence
Current administration has finally eaten away at this e.g. by redefining torture
Their legal briefs and equivocations will be used by US enemies for decades to come
McCain-Warner amendment to defense budget barring cruel and unusual punishment was blocked by administration
Current rules are unclear and not understood by senior political appointees – how can enlisted men be expected to know?
Army should abide by strict rules and activities which compromise those should be the remit of the CIA paramilitary units
The situation needs to be brought back on track
Dinner talk
Americas Purpose and the Global Struggle against terrorism
Chuck Hagel (Senate Foreign relations committee)





America’s purpose should be focused on the 7 Billion people under 20 who don’t care about WWII
Sat with a group of graduates who had all just watched Oliver Stone’s movie JFK – and really believed that something like
that had really happened
o
That’s where we are with the arab world
“ A little less arrogance would do a lot of good all the way around”
o
Major changes happen about every 50 years
o
E.g. end of WWII set in place most of the global institutions we know e.g. world bank, UN etc
This time we have less margin for error
Military and foreign service deserve policy worthy of them
o
…and you only get that by criticizing policies you disagree with
o
Criticism is not unpatriotic – its critically important

Page 12 of 19
Day 2
Thoughts on America’s Terrorism Challenge
Hon Jim Saxton (house armed services committee)








1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To solve a problem you first need to define it – in this case, its hard
Part of the problem is US culture e.g. racial profiling is frowned on even if the threat is concentrated
This is a problem in defining this challenge
There is no US consensus on the nature of the threat
The threat of radical Islam is akin to Nazism and communism
In its nature (state, sub-state, WMD etc) could be more threatening than either
Its been clear since the 80’s that groups such as Hamas could not be managed by compromise
4 key areas
Protecting the homeland e.g. formation of NorthCom, DHS, DI etc
o
Why has the US not been attacked?
o
Terrorists know that Americans are bored with the war and hence best to wait until we lose interest
o
Terrorists know that small attacks actually harm their cause
Taking the war to the enemy
o
Potentially preemptive
o
SOCOM has been key
o
Having the capability is not enough – need the willingness to use it
Need to promote democratic processes to remove ability of terrorists to influence peaceful populations
o
although note that many counties will not want the USf orm of democracy
need a new approach to Iran
o
Iran is on the rise, no other regional country can rival it and its influence is strong
GWOT is a war of ideas – which means that it will take generations
Q. (from George Soros) how do you avoid working with evil partners such as the Uzbecks
A. an abnormally high proportion of SOCOM training is to avoid this - but its hard and it does happen in the real world
American Nightmares vs Opportunities: The dilemma of the last sovereign
Hon Zbigniew Brzezinski (Fmr national security advisor)
(Didn’t make it but read paper in ‘the American interest’ – ‘the dilemma of the last sovereign’)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/
Martin Walker (UPI)


The assumption that US interests and Global interests align is no longer clear
o
e.g. refusal to commit to Kyoto and other groups
Bush national security strategy 2002
o
Implies preemption
o
Implies desire to prevent rise of any other global power to rival US
Francis Fukuyama (John Hopkins)







Common assumption is that the problem is the reassertion of a traditional form of islam
Either
o
Wall our selves off
o
Go in and fix it
But perhaps the real core of Islamism is about response of Islam to globalization
o
E.g. in Islamic societies, most things are given and denationalized
o
Globalization means you have to chose a new identity – OBL gives a very easy answer
o
Very similar to people attracted to Bolshevik and National Socialism
Is this more of a western European problem than a Middle Eastern problem?
Democratizing the middle east is helpful but not sufficient
Long-standing tradition in US actions being rubber stamped by UN etc post the event, rather than getting permission first
But deep problems in the conflation of preemptive and preventive wars - doesn’t scale – US won’t stand for other countries
doing the same
Page 13 of 19





Required a special case for the US – American Exceptionalism and this isn’t acceptable to many countries
If you expect the world to allow American hegemony you have to be capable of executing e.g. in rebuilding Iraq
Challenge for western Europe is the assimilation of disaffected minority groups
UK/Dutch model of multiculturalism has failed – rights of groups is protected to the detriment of the rights of individuals
Need a sense of national identity which is open to newcomers
Col Lawrence Wilkerson ( Fmr Chief of Staff, State dept)










Chilling talk
2002 national security strategy is very much a continuation of US foreign policy since 1947
Strategy was well defined but poorly executed
Federal response to Katrina showed that response to a truly catastrophic 9-11 e.g. WMD will be wholly inadequate
o
The system will fail
o
What will happen to the republic and our values post WMD?
o
After civil war it took until end of 1890’s (end of Indian wars) for US society to resettle
o
What will the essential response be?
o
A retaliatory strike will be politically essential
o
Closed borders
How do we plan for the surrender of civil liberties and their recovery post WMD?
What insight does Katrina give us
Coast guard is a great example of a very flexible organization which can turn around instantly but its hurt by being part of a
larger DHS
Need a new national strategy process
Congress is not doing its job in oversight
How must the political system change to tackle the challenge of the next century
John Ikenberry (Princeton)








US needs to go back to some of the traditional models for international engagement
Bush foreign policy is explicitly hegemonic – which is very different from previous administrations
Implicit proposed deal ‘American Exceptionalism’ – if America is prepared to take the burdon of being differentially
involved in enforcing world order, it must be treated differently e.g. no ICC because US is differentially deploying troops,
no land mine treaty because US is on Korean DMZ etc
First time that when presented with the opportunity for US to define the global security environment that it hasn’t chosen a
liberal, internationalist approach.
For the first time international institutions are seen as impediments rather than tools of American policy
Current conservative international strategy
1. Scepticism of international institutions
2. Allergy to conventions
3. Legitimacy belongs at home
And the rest of the world has to get used to it
US needs to readress NATO and reform it as the centerpiece of strategy to deal with 21C threats
Rt Hon Kim Campbell (ex PM Canada and Sec Gen Club of Madrid)






Club of Madrid http://www.clubmadrid.org/ – ex PMs and Presidents who use their insight, links etc to promote
democracy
Summit was the largest gathering of global counter terrorism experts
Suprising concensus
E.g. terrorism is a multilateral issue and must be fought within rule of war – not as a dewy eyed ideal but as a practical
matter in winning a war of ideas
US administration was hard to engage with
Most criticism of the US is based on frustration that the world’s major power is failing in the responsibilities to live by its
ideals
America Engaged in the World and the war on terror: Principles Leaders
Can Agree On: The Release of the Eminent Persons Statement on
Terrorism
Jamie Metzl (partnership for a secure America)


PSA http://www.psaonline.org/ aims to build a bi-partisan concensus on national security issues
Major statement issued http://www.psaonline.org/public_statements.html
Page 14 of 19

Principles
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Effective grand strategy must be grounded in bilateral political agreement
Must involve partnership with friends and allies
Sometimes force will be necessary
but force is not sufficient – challenge is to integrate all the elements of foreign policy
need more vigorous campaign of ideas
must reach out to moderate muslims and help them to fight radicalization
must do everything we can do to secure our people and provide resources to military, responders etc
Freedom only thrives where human dignity is respected – US and allies must fight poverty, disease and under
development
Q. Is the real problem that grievances arise from occupation and oppression of Muslims
A. Have tried to cover that in the statement but…
Q. How well do the public understand the underlying issues between unilateralism and multilateralism
A. 2008 elections will tell…
A conversation: America’s Purpose and Challenges
Madeleine Albright (Former secretary of state)
+ Andrea Koppel








Military will often be needed to deal with terrorism
BUT other tools and assets are also important
US was right to respond to 911 by attacking Afghanistan
BUT putting terrorism at the center of policy (especially as a justification for Iraq) was a mistake – it gives carte blanche
for any country who claims they are fighting terror (e.g. Russia in Chechnya)
Issue for Uzbekistan is balancing fear of the south (Islam) and fear of the north (Russia)
For US to regain its moral high-ground, it is key that senior people are held accountable for e.g. Abu Ghraib and Katrina
‘iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity, but getting it right is a necessity, not a choice’
‘I believe that the US in an exceptional nation, but exceptions to the law should not be made for us’
Report from the five expert working groups
Reports from working groups http://www.americaspurpose.org/working_group_summaries.pdf
White papers from working group members http://www.americaspurpose.org/working_group_papers.pdf
Working Group : Underlying causes of terrorism - Loiuse Richardson



agreed on
o
terrorism is a tool not a thing
o
impossible to prevent people turning to terror but can use policy to reduce the support for those that do
disagree on
o
reasons for widespread distrust of US
o
balance between religion and politics as causes
4 guiding principles
o
Policies should not be at the cost of liberal democratic ideals
o
Short term tactics should not make the situation worse
o
Soft and hard power need to be combined
o
Key targets should be the communities which support terrorism
Working Group : Confronting Terrorism - Hon Richard Hutching





Framing of GWOT has been very harmful – frames everything as a military challenge
SOCOM has been the key military tool in fighting terrorism but is now a smaller proportion of defense spending
AQ has mutated beyond the point that decapitation or frontal attack are practical techniques
Cultural and linguistic challenges not yet tackled
Relationships need to become multilateral rather than a set of bilaterals
Page 15 of 19



A centralized CT fund is required cf the UK global fund
Security clearance process needs radical overhaul to enable specialists to be brought on board more rapidly
Intellligence practices need to be changed – cold war compartmentalization and need-to-know need to be replaced with
more open, wider, more virtual networks.
Working Group : Homeland Security and Freedom – Suzanne Spalding







Debate framed as tradeoff between security and liberty is fundamentally false and misleading
We are strong because of our freedoms not in spite of them
See working paper “Privacy in the 21st Century – Law and Policy” by Paul Rosenzweig
GWOT does not provide a suitable legal framework
Current interpretation of powers of commander in chief is inappropriate for a conflict which could last a generation
Legal frameworks
o
At home – civil law is the right tool
o
On the battlefield – military law and convention is clear
o
For terrorists captured away from the battlefield – a new formulation is required, perhaps a new section to
Geneva convention
One area about which there has been far too little public discussion and debate is the legal authorities for DOD activities
inside the United States. For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) traditionally undertakes a wide range of activities
related to “preparation of the battlefield” in anticipation of military actions. In the Global War on Terrorism, the potential
battlefields are legion and, with DOD’s Homeland Defense mission, include the United States. Posse Comitatus is often
cited as a restriction on military activities inside the US but it only applies to “law enforcement activities” and presumably
would not apply to “traditional” military operations. Preparation of the battlefield also includes intelligence collection
efforts. The military has updated, and sometimes made publicly available, its policies with respect to the collection of
intelligence inside the United States. Yet, there has been almost no public discussion and debate about these policies, how
they are being implemented, and what oversight mechanisms are in place in the Executive Branch and Congress.
Working Group : America’s Grand Strategy – Charles Kupchan








Administration over-stretched by assuming that 911 was a breakpoint which required a new grand strategy – and should
readdress to a stance that 911 may have added challenges but was suited to an adaptation of the existing grand strategy
Gaps in knowledge – e.g. how to run occupations, how to think about religion in international relationships
How to think about the north atlantic relationship
Most pressing issue is nuclear terrorism
We cannot prevent people wanted to harm us – but we can limit their access to fissile material
Disagreements
o
US uni-polarity and dominance will remain and hence should be the centerpiece of US policy vs. Tipping point
and US dominance will decline with rise of asia etc
o
Is the US being balanced e.g. importance of Shanghai agreement, France and Germany opposing US in security
council vs its business as usual
3 camps in group
1. Robust international engagement
2. Off-shore balancing heavy – step back and focus on areas of critical importance
3. Off-short balancing light – pull back and keep powder dry
Need to understand more on the domestic sources of international policy e.g. ‘rise of the heartland’
Working Group : Promoting Democracy – Michael McFaul






Consensus – in the long run, the US benefits from democratization
Failure in consensus – in the short run, there is no firm evidence that democratization has reduced the threats to democracy
Need to be honest about what democracy can achieve
But democracies tend not to pick fights, start genocide, create refugees etc
Promotion of democracy can only be achieved by leading by example
Suggestions
o
Provide incentives for transitions rather than revolutions
o
Link economic aid to democratic processes
o
Support independent media
o
Invest in education and communication proportionatly to military spending
Page 16 of 19
o
Know your enemies – not invested in experts such as developing more tenured faculty focused on middle-east
Benchmarking America’s Response Top Terrorism: Where we’ve been…
Where we have to go
Hon Juan Zarate (Deputy national security advisor)

Basically gave a completely un-nuanced pep talk for administration policy
The Challenge of Balance: How Terrorism and the Response can
undermine a society
Marc Sageman (university of Pennsylvania, ex-CIA)





Internet communications have dramatically changed the nature of jihadism
WWW has given opportunity for reduced, unique versions of the Koran which avoid the traditional venues for discussion
and interpretation through anonymous posting and retrieve
Jihad has moved to the Internet – what does that mean operationally?
o
Internet has become the marketplace of ideas (replacing the mosques)
o
consumers choose which websites they wish and fragment/coexist – means that dynamics of organization are
completely different
o
needs no leaders,
o
doesn’t suffer from internal dissent like normal organizations
o
encourages rapid mutation of small groups
o
encourages rapid feelings of intimacy through self disclosure
o
Command and control now operates over the internet
Ends up self reinforcing strong beliefs of small fragments of the overall Jihadist movement
Forms self-radicalizing cliques and disconnected loners who are virtual members of virtual community – cf Columbine
Daniel Levy (ex Oslo negotiator)





Tactics of fight against terrorism easily undermines the fabric of society
This is what is happening in Israel – and is partly behind the Gaza withdrawal
Recent survey >70% of Jewish Israelis think that Gaza withdrawal is beginning of a wider withdrawal from the west bank
Civil debate is increasingly much stronger in Israel than is widely understood
The political sensitivity of the Israeli issue is such that many people in the US avoid the whole issue of root causes
Galima Bukharbaeva (uzbeck reporter)




Backpack, notepad and press notebook penetrated by bullet during Andijan massacre
1000 dead
Played audio tape of the massacre
Dictators are not just unpleasant allies – they’re unreliable allies (and get overthrown)
Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/









There are no states supporting AQ
There is no threat from the wider Islamic world
Jihadism is a fringe like Bader Meinhoff Brigade, Red Brigade
Dangerous, able to recruit very able people in small numbers, but a fringe
Mohammed Atta is not typical of AQ, Richard Reid (the shoebomber) is
Most effective tool arab nations have developed has been public debate – e.g. a Yemeni judge who argues with suspects on
the Koran for 3 days and sends them home
Experience has shown that allowing islamist groups into the political debate has been ok – denying/supressing them causes
terrorism
Funding should be shifted to surveillance of Jihadis, policies which don’t look like imperialism
In many of the countries its really about self determination – Bengalis have been under external control since 1750’s,
Algeria was a colony for >100 years
Karen Greenberg (NYU)
Page 17 of 19












Torture and terrorism both have fuzzy definitions
How did we get to a policy of torture?
Started by increasing the powers of the president right after 9-11
Bush defined the conflict as war not crime – had fundamental implications
E.g. we have never thought of trying KSM etc
Why not?
If we had – war in Iraq could not have been framed in GWOT
It alienated European allies who had more experience in applying crime model to terrorism
Causes disconnect when UK and US collaborate e.g. when UK police go to Guantanamo, they meet military not police
Secrecy has been the chosen modus vivendi for the administrations conflict
Administration has directly obscured statistics and cases e.g. can’t get figures on prisoners held or deportations
Transparency and accountability are incredibly important
Ivan Eland (cato)



Pre-911 research showed that US military presence caused terrorist responses
Hence driving up presence post-911 will only drive up terrorism
Need to focus on destroying AQ and its allies, not a general campaign against radical islam
An Offshore Discussion of Americas Terrorism Debate
Julian Borger – The Guardian

Fundamental differences between European perspective which looks at root causes and civil solutions – whereas the US
takes a very military perspective
Yosri Fouda - Al Jazeera



No one from the 911 commission would speak to him
911 commission were not allowed access to 911 organizers or people who had had access to them – how seriously can it be
taken
US backed candidate for Egyptian election is worse than Mubarek – need to have better friends!!!
Judit Jarai (Hungarian Radio)


There are significant Hungarians minorities in countries with authorirtarian rulers but who are viewed as allies in the
GWOT
When they are under threat there is no US response
Tsutomu Watanabe (asahi shimbu)


Publicity around North Korean kidnapping of Japanese civilians shook Japan in the same way that 9-11 shook US
One of the main reasons that Japan has supported the GWOT
Michael Backfisch (Handelblatt)


Terrorism is not just driven by poverty – if it was all of the terrorists would come from Mali
American exceptionalism is a problematic concept and a bit more humility would help!!!
Paulo Sotero – O Estado de S Paulo






Just returned from Katrina
Has not seen such human suffering since Haiti hurricane in the 1980’s
Latin America has been the victim of US intervention and interference for a long time and hence is very suspicious of it
Iraq causes problems for Latin American countries because their economies are so linked to that of the US.
Brazilian killed in London by Met due to incompetence – caused outrage in Brazil
Immigration continues to be an issue – and has been reframed as a national security problem – needs to be viewed as an
economic problem (even if self imposed)
Page 18 of 19
Page 19 of 19