The fundamental problem with the War on Terrorism is that the Bush Administration made it a real war, and it shouldn't have. It is being fought as a war in the classic sense of the word, rather than being used as a stirring metaphor for a different kind of struggle.
There have been metaphorical wars of policy in the past--not shooting wars, but campaigns of mobilized resources and organized effort. Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty; Richard Nixon declared a War on Cancer; Ronald Reagan declared a War on Drugs. Although these metaphorical wars have met with varying degrees of success, the point is that Johnson didn't shoot the poor, Nixon didn't shoot cancer patients, and Reagan didn't shoot drug addicts. In contrast, many of the people that the Bush Administration's War on Terrorism have "collaterally damaged" were already the victims of terror. They may not have hated America before, but they sure do now.
The War on Terrorism that we should be fighting is a metaphorical war. It should be a war of international intelligence cooperation, a war of international law enforcement, and a war of international humanitarian effort. In regard to addressing the root causes of terrorism, the Bush Administration's March 2006 National Security Strategy report focuses on spreading democracy as the panacea. In the prelude to the Iraq War, neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perl talked about turning Iraq into a democracy, so that from there democracy could spread to other Middle East states. In the four years since, we have seen the tragic and inevitable outcome of the misguided ideology of spreading democracy from the barrel of a gun and the steering wheel of a HUMV.
Democracy is a set of principles, operationalized by a set of government institutions, mediated through a set of civic organizations. It is not something that one can force on someone against his will, or even give to someone who is willing to accept it but unprepared to actualize it. One can write a constitution in a few months. One can set up government institutions in a few years. But creating a civil society takes decades, and no democratic government can be healthy without a healthy civil society.
Democracy can do all of the things that the National Security Strategy report claims. It can abate alienation by offering an ownership stake in society. It can redress grievances through the rule of law. It can counter misinformation and dogma with an independent media and a marketplace of ideas. How well any society puts these into practice is another story. In any case, if Americans understand what democracy is, and believe that its spread will contribute to a more peaceful world, our mission--should we decide to accept it--is to show other peoples what our system has to offer them. This is not a military mission.
It is, however, a mission of service. The proposed American World Service Corps would bring substance to the high-sounding buzzwords that have come out of US foreign policy circles in recent years: public diplomacy and transformational diplomacy. Public diplomacy is talking the talk of democracy. Transformational diplomacy is walking the walk. The State Department can do some of the former, but it lacks the resources to do much of the latter.
It is up to American society as a whole to walk the walk wherever in the world we are invited, including in our own land. A number of organizations have carried on this work for decades: Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Habitat for Humanity, Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross, International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps, et cetera. However, a globalizing world that provides instant information and swift, inexpensive transportation also has the capacity to bring terror to our doorstep. Consequently, it is time to step up to the next level of play.
The American World Service Corps would provide an institutional mechanism for our new, higher level of play. The AWCS would not be a large new government bureaucracy; rather, its small staff would serve as an umbrella organization to funnel America's best resources--can-do Americans--to effective, existing organizations. It is the missing piece in our strategy against terrorism, and we cannot win without it. The front line in the War on Terrorism is not Iraq, it is your front door. Contributing your time to such organizations can be an expression of altruism; but it could also be viewed as an act of self-defense.
Ultimately, however, and regardless of whether Congress creates the AWCS, defeating terrorism is up to each of us. If you want, you can head out for adventure in some remote corner of the world. Or, you can participate in local civic organizations, for by building a better America, you show the world what is possible. By being an active member of a local political organization, you fight the reign of terror by making for true government by the people.
Really, it just means spending a little less time sitting in the bleachers or in front of the television being entertained, and a little more time playing the greatest game there is: moving the ball toward the goal of creating the world in which you want to live, and in which you would like your children to live. This game will not be televised, so if you want to see it, get in the game. Suit up and take the field. There's a world to win.