Long War means new problems

With the three-year mark of the United States’ invasion of Iraq quickly approaching, Thomas… With the three-year mark of the United States’ invasion of Iraq quickly approaching, Thomas Mahnken said it is hazardous to predict the outcome of a protracted war such as this one, and it is crucial to form coalitions to ultimately defeat terrorist networks.

Mahnken – a visiting fellow at Johns Hopkins University – spoke before just a handful of students and several empty seats in a lecture titled “Strategy for a Long War” Monday in Posvar Hall.

The United States needs to access its allies’ expertise, he said, “because many of our adversaries are also adversaries of local regimes, and it’s in our best interest to work with partners across the world to help solve security problems.”

But Mahnken also came at the situation from another angle.

“Are we at war?” he asked.

While some experts say the United States and Iraq are not at war because it cannot be won in the traditional sense, Mahnken disagreed.

He said that despite this war’s oddities – the “heroes” including firefighters and police officers and the “battlefields” including train stations in London and Madrid – it is still an active force for both the United States and its adversaries to compel each other and is therefore a war.

But who is the enemy?

Mahnken says that most official documents on the Iraqi war describe the adversary as if it were terrorism. However, “You can’t develop a strategy against an abstract noun, only against a real adversary,” he said.

“We face groups that not only adhere to a certain school of Islamic jurisprudence, but condone the use of violence to achieve their aims,” Mahnken said.

Mahnken said that President George W. Bush, in a 2005 speech, gave the best definition of the war’s adversary to come from an official when he said, “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism, others militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.”

Mahnken said Monday, “The point is, that even at the highest level of government, there still is not a clear definition of who our adversary is. This really gets in the way of sound strategy development.”

Mahnken also said there is a widespread tendency across the United States to view terrorists as irrational, but he warned to be careful of this wrong and misleading accusation.

He said that while a suicide bombing may seem illogical, the United States’ adversaries have well-defined, calculated goals that are strategically rational.

Ayman al-Zawahiri – a prominent member of the al-Qaeda group and former head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad paramilitary organization – for example, has one of the best-explained strategies out there, Mahnken said.

That is, to inflict losses on the United States and “drive us out of Islamic world,” which will lead to the establishment of Islamic super state in Egypt where the empire will expand further.

So, how could this war evolve?

Mahnken provided three scenarios.

He said a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city could occur, which could bolster the strength of Salafi – members of a movement in Sunni Islam who believe in literal readings of the Qur’an – in the Islamic world, and would put the U.S. government under pressure to retaliate.

Or, Salafi groups in nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could actually achieve some of their objectives, such as attaining nuclear weapons or inheriting a greater oil supply. Mahnken said this wouldn’t be a total tragedy because it would be easier for the United States to attack a physical entity rather than a dispersed terrorist group.

For a more positive scenario, Mahnken added one in which U.S. troops capture Osama bin Laden, ultimately leading to the possibility of the ascendance of Salafi leadership that differed from that of bin Laden’s.