Fallows Call to Declare Victory

James Fallows has an important article in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly (subscription required) that argues the United States is succeeding in its struggle against terrorism and that the time has come to declare the war on terrorism over. “Declaring Victory” is a long and thoughtful article that is difficult to summarize. But I will do my best because it offers such an interesting perspective.

Here is the gist: Things look better than many Americans believe and better than nearly all politica rhetoric asserts. He argues that the essence of the change is this: because of al-Qaeda’s own mistakes, and because of the things the United States and its allies have done right, al-Qaeda’s ability to inflict direct damage in America or on Americans has been sharply reduced.

He reached this conclusion after interviewing sixty experts throughout the world. He summarizes their conclusions by arguing that the al Qaeda we knew in 2001 no longer exists. “Their command structure is gone, their Afghan sanctuary is gone, their ability to move around and hold meetings is gone, their financial and communications networks have been hard hit.” Bin Laden is now like Che Guevara: he has symbolic status but is irrelevant from an operational point of view.

Fallows maintains that al Qaeda has made a series of strategic blunders. Their targets and methods have undermined their movement. They go for “symbolic terrorism” rather than small-scale attacks that could have far greater cumulative impact. And Muslim-on-Muslim attacks in places like Amman and Bali have turned the Arab street against al-Qaeda. Quoting Peter Bergen, “That is their Achilles’ heel. Every time the bombs go off and kill civilians it works in our favor.” But, according to Fallows, the increasingly brutal methods also are a mistake. Fallows discusses by way of example the “Enough with the Beheadings!” memorandum sent by Al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi in 2005. “As attacks move into the terrorists’ own neighborhoods, and as the victims include recognizable kinsmen or fellow citizens, the romance fades.” Finally, Fallows argues that al-Qaeda has completely failed to offer any positive message. A puritanical Islamic state appeals to very few Muslim respondents polled on what they like and dislike about al-Qaeda. Hurt America? Yes. Rule Our Children? No.

The United States and its allies are also credited by Fallows for their successes. The United States has become a far more difficult target to attack. The billions spent on security make it harder for Mohammed Attas of the world to enter this country and enroll in flight schools. And second generation Muslim Americans (unlike Europeans) assimilate well as a group. Arab Americans are wealthier than the average American and do not share the alienation that Muslims in other parts of the world feel.

Our great mistake, according to Fallows and the experts he interviewed, is Iraq. As Fallows puts it, if the United States stays in Iraq, it keeps making enemies. If it leaves, it goes dragging its tail. He argues that the U.S. presence in Iraq is viewed by al-Qaeda as a gift from Allah that traps American soldiers where they are most vulnerable: to jihadists who are lying in wait, carrying out assassinations, kidnappings, ambushes, and suicide attacks.

Fallows concludes by arguing that the terrorists can only hurt us so much. Their real destructive power lies in provoking us to commit errors. But superpower baiting need not result in predictive responses. To escape the trap, Fallows argues we should declare victory in the global war on terror and move past a wartime mentality. A standing state of war no longer offers any advantages for the United States. It encourages a state of fear, it indulges undisciplined spending, and offers an unending invitation to defeat when the inevitable next attack comes.

Fallows maintains that this should be the message to Americans: We have achieved something no one thought possible five years ago. We have killed, captured, and displaced those who attacked our soil. We are not free of danger and life will continue to brings risks. But we are at our best when we do not let fear paralyze or obsess us. We must cope with terrorism, but embrace the full range of this era’s challenges and opportunities.

That is Fallows’ message in a nutshell. Much of it resonates with me, particularly his emphasis on avoiding the pitfall of living in a society that is braced with fear. We should live with courage and confidence, knowing there will be an inevitable next attack. That was the attitude in London for decades in the face of IRA terrorism. It should be ours too. And Fallows is surely right that we will be doomed to failure if we view any future attack as defeat.

The one major problem with his article is that he argues we should move beyond fear and, among other things, stop the undisciplined antiterrorism spending. And yet he argues earlier in the piece that the billions spent to combat terrorism is mostly “security theater” used to make us feel safer. In so doing, Fallows appears to be self-contradictory. If the end result we seek is freedom from fear, then the security money spent to make us feel fearless may well be worth it, even if it does little to tangibly prevent terrorism.

I would be most curious what others think. Should we declare victory? Should we move to a different rhetoric and a different frame of mind in this struggle against terrorism?