Establishing a Deterrent

Neither political party has offered a vision of America’s involvement in the world. The debate has degenerated into a case-by-case analysis of isolated actions—events of the day—with no guiding principles or coherent policy. Symptomatic of this impoverished debate is a total lack of discussion on establishing a deterrent against foreign attacks. One of the most important roles of military policy is not only to fight wars but to maintain a posture to insure our safety via a powerful deterrent.

Establishing a deterrent takes more than creating a strong military. A military is worthless if our enemy doesn’t believe we will use it in retaliation to destroy all that our enemy values. Few fear America’s might today because we are afraid to use it. The Paper Tiger image emboldened jihadists after they attacked us for a decade with little more than a half-hearted response. After the Islamic attack of September 11^th, Americans demanded a response. But to respond effectively one has to identify the enemy, expose their aims, and understand their motivation; something both political parties failed to do.

The prevailing view is that the enemy can’t be stopped with a deterrent because they are willing to die. This, of course, is enemy propaganda meant to project an image of invincibility and demoralize our efforts. Islam is not a spiritual religion in origin; it is a land-grabbing imperialist warrior religion that appended a spiritual component to strengthen its fighting capacity. The obsession with land is apparent today and dramatized by the fury over losing a sliver of real estate in the West Bank from land that stretches from Morocco to the Pacific Rim broken mainly by India. But India, too, is seen as lost territory from past Islamic rule.

The strength of the Islamic religion comes from without not within. Winning battles, extending the domain of Islamic rule, and humiliating the infidel invigorate the religion. After the Islamic attack of September 11^th, bin Laden remained one of the top three admired Islamic figures by the vast majority of Muslims for years according to the Pew Research Center. But losing control of Afghanistan and Iraq was a major blow to the Islamic psyche. Islam, remember, is about land control and domination. Successfully waging war and conquering others are signs from Allah. Moses never made it to the Promised Land and Jesus never ruled. Mohammad slaughtered and conquered.

The euphoria after September 11^th didn’t last. The Pew polls show that bin Laden is losing his popularity. His plan backfired after we easily gained control of two nations and surrounded a third poised to attack. Today it is common to hear Arabs talk about how 9/11 was a Zionist plot and an excuse to steal Muslim land. This is an admission that 9/11 was a failure resulting in the loss of control to a foreign power of what was once the heart of the Caliphate: Baghdad.

While the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq help to re-establish a deterrent, many Muslims rightly believe our resolve won’t last. While they boast of their willingness to die for their cause, it is their ability to kill for their cause that creates the threat to our civilization. Our problem isn’t a willingness to risk our lives but a difficulty risking their lives. Unlike them we have a hard time killing our foes. Instead we hold back and append each military action with a humanitarian nations-building campaign. It took less than 200 fatalities to remove Saddam from power but over 2000 to try to create a better society for those who we hope will someday thank us. Let’s remember that Israel has been waiting for 60 years to be accepted by her neighbors.

During the last 50 years we too have sought to win the “hearts and minds” of the Islamic world by taking Nasser’s side in the Suez Crises, helping Egypt get back the Sinai from Israel, coming to the rescue of Muslims in the Balkans, helping the Afghans fight the Soviets, coming to the aid of Kuwaitis, protecting Saudi Arabia from Saddam, etc. We so much wish to avoid killing our enemy that we dropped food behind enemy lines during the first few weeks of the Afghan war. And we’ve supported the Palestinians for 50 years directly or through the United Nations. Even today we are searching for loopholes to send aid to the supporters of Hamas in the West Bank.

Hasn’t anyone noticed our generosity has backfired? In a warrior culture, generosity is seen as a weakness. If anything, appeasement isn’t a deterrent but an inflammatory accelerant. A deterrent isn’t established by our willingness to help our enemies but our willingness to kill our enemies. The reason we are at war today is because we have failed to establish a deterrent. To do so now requires a prompt show of force to deal with today's threats. Credibility requires a clear policy and a certain response. Unfortunately, our clarity has dissipated and our resolve has eroded.

“We must be better than them” seems to be the cliché heard on the left and too often on the right. War isn’t about “being better”—it’s about survival. Although the notion of "better" divorced from survival is suspect on the face of it. It’s not how you play the game—it isn’t a game—it’s about winning. This war won’t be won until the enemy fears losing their family, village, tribe, and, above all, their land. It won’t be won until they are asking how they can win our “hearts and minds.” But not only are we afraid to kill, we are guilt ridden if they suffer or die of their own failure. The “humanitarian” aid to the Palestinians is a case in point as is the left’s call to come to the rescue of those in Darfur. We can’t kick the altruist habit.

It is important that we do not help in Darfur. If they are to understand the contempt we have, or should have, we need to make it clear by our refusal to help them long before we have to fight them. But there is another reason. If we are to reform our foreign policy to a defensive posture, we not only need to fight the threats we face today but we must reframe from involvements when there is no perceived threat. If we are to embody the policy “we will fight you if you threaten us” we have to also embody the policy “we will leave you alone if you don’t.” Both are required to establish a policy of deterrence. Yet, today we are in Haiti, Serbia, Liberia, Columbia, and soon the Sudan. President Clinton sent our military into 34 conflicts—more than any previous President. We have lost our focus and purpose long before the current administration.

Muslims aren't going to abandon Islam—at least any time soon. They will continue to embrace the principle of jihad. However, they may decide that it isn’t prudent to act on that principle. That is part of establishing a deterrent. In the long-run they may question their religion and marginalize it as the Turks did in the 1920s. However, there will be no long-run for civilization if we do not insure our security today. We must fight today's battles if we are to discourage tomorrow's. But with every act of appeasement, with every act of groveling to win their "hearts and minds," and every time we hold back from vanquishing the enemy, we undercut every brave man and woman who has fought the enemy on the battle field. We can win the battles but we will lose the war without the proper leadership that can define a proper course, champion our righteousness, and demonstrate our resolve.

These are my current thoughts on defense. The floor is open for discussion!