The Bush administration says we have to fight a war on terror. Kerry (used to, at least), favor a law enforcement approach. Which one makes more sense?
I've been thinking about
Seditious Libel's contention that Richard Clarke's testimony proves that Democrats are just as qualified as Republicans to handle issues of national security. I tend to think that premise is true. I'm also coming to believe that Democratic doctrine on terrorism is fundamentally better than the Bush Doctrine. Charles Hill, Yale's diplomat-in-resident, has argued to my seminar that the Bush administration's great genius was to reconceptualize terrorism as a war issue, not as a law-enforcement issue. I think that framing is problematic, and the traditional law-enforcement perspective is not only more ethical, but more effective.
Josh Marshall argues that the Bush administration fundamentally misunderstood the nature of threats as they moved beyond the state system. I think this is essentially true; terrorists may be state-sanctioned or supported, but they are generally not official agents of recognized states. This is the first reason the Bush Doctrine is so problematic: if terrorism is a war, but terrorists are non-state actors, and wars are typically fought between nations, who do we declare the war on terrorism against? The Bush Doctrine makes some sense for Afghanistan, where terrorists had taken over a state (I thought, and continue to think the war in Afghanistan is legitimate. I also think that the Bush administration's lack of follow-through there is shameful.). I think that at times, the Bush Doctrine would have made sense against Lybia, and a number of other clearly terrorist states. Attacking Iraq, a state which sponsors terrorism elsewhere, but may not in and of itself have been terrorist, sets a dangerous precedent for who we can legitimately attack. Defining terrorism as a war issue blurs the lines of our response, and authorizes us to use vastly more force in many more situations. At best, this is imprudent, at worst, it is very, very dangerous.
Treating terrorism as a uniquely brutal form of crime, and treating it as a law enforcement issue seems to be a much more effective and principled stance. Capturing, trying, and punishing terrorists under the rule of law is a much more targeted process, with fewer opportunities for collateral damage; the people who are guilty get punished, not people who are unfortunate enough to be in the way of missiles that can only be so accurate. Civilian casualties always and ought to rile the anger of any country that is under attack. That's a principle that goes back to the depredations of the 30 Years War and the Peace of Westphalia; it's the reason that the attacks of September 11 are so sickening to us. Relying on law enforcement reaffirms our committment to the rule of law that forbids targeting civilians, it defines us as ideologically and in practice opposed to the kinds of actions terrorists take. Fighting a war on terror runs the risk that we kill civilians and dismiss those deaths as necessary costs, which is exactly what terrorists do. Having different reasons for killing civilians doesn't change the fact that those killings are always wrong. Accidental deaths by missile strikes are just as tragic as those willfully caused by murderers. I want to make it clear that I don't think American soldiers, or even the Bush Doctrine, are terrorist. I do think that total ideological resistance to terrorism requires that we punish only the guilty. Such an approach will greatly strengthen our ability to lead as a nation, and will dramatically increase our international support, all of which will make our fight to completely end terrorism much easier.
It's cliche at this point to say that the Bush Doctrine will lead us to more wars, more civilian deaths, more anger, and more terrorists, but I do think it's true. I understand the argument that terrorists declared war on the United States, and we are only fighting back, but I think that argument is flawed. As I've argued above, when we attack states, and not directly the targets they may (or in the case of Iraq, may not) sponsor, we're actually initiating new conflicts. Also, in asymetrical conflicts, there is just no good reason that we have to use the same tactics or rhetoric as our enemies. if we can catch terrorists and try them, we distinguish ourselves from them, ethically. I do understand that we may not have law enforcement officials who are trained for international captures, attempts to capture criminals sometimes fail and end in killing, that there are issues with, among other things, extraditiopn. All of these objections seem to indicated that the United States needs to get on board for the World Court, and that international law needs to evolve rapidly--not that we need to fight more wars.
I'm frustrated that the Bush administration will condemn a law enforcement approach as less than vigorous and soft on terror. Getting tough on terror as a law enforcement issue could help us develop the technology, training, and approaches to get more effectively tough on crime in the United States while building a more credible global anti-terror alliance. It's maddening to think that we can crack down on terror ethically and effectively, and we're not.
For more, check out Primary Colors 2004