Rand Corp.: Stop calling it a war on terrorism

For years, President Bush has declared a war on terrorism, sending U.S. troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to defeat extremists.

Now comes a new study by the administration-friendly Rand Corp., arguing that military campaigns rarely work to put terrorists out of business. Instead, says the West Coast think tank, it's local intelligence and police forces that co-opt local terrorists.

And, the authors advise the White House to stop calling it a war on terrorism and start working on counter-terrorism efforts.

Here's their case. Examining what it called "a comprehensive roster" of terrorist groups that plagued the planet between 1968 and 2006, the study found that military force was successful in 7% of cases. Check out the study's graph of how strategies against 268 terrorist groups worldwide ended.

In the current wars, said the report:

Military force has not undermined Al Qaeda. As of 2008, Al Qaeda has remained a strong and competent organize. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes.

Al Qaeda's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy.

Instead of calling it a war on terrorism, say authors Seth G. Jones and Martin C. Libicki, Washington should replace that emphasis on a military solution with "the kind of counter-terrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today." The report, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida," concludes:

Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations -- both the United States and elsewhere -- that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: White House

Comments

[Mark E]

Funny RAND and other terror studies are ONLY newsworthy when they adhere to LIBERAL ideas. Why don't you cite the CTC study that shows Saddam was supporting al Qaeda and some of the studies showing Iran's dangerous destabilizing actions in Latin America? Oh yeah, because those are things LIBERALS don't wanna talk about - meaning you the LA Times.

[Cam]

@Mark E: What idea presented in this article would you consider a "liberal" one?