The calamitous terrorist assaults of Sept. 11 have crystallized U.S. security
priorities better than any Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) ever has, and
probably ever will. The attacks, unthinkable until last Tuesday, have
concentrated the minds of American security thinkers on a single threat in a
manner not seen since the height of the Cold War.
The grim specter of Americans dying by the thousands at their offices in
Manhattan and northern Virginia at the hands of fanatical terrorists — who next
time may unleash chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons — looms so large as to
eclipse practically everything on the threat horizon. A new “designated enemy”
has etched itself into the national psyche, and has irretrievably altered the
course of American defense policy and planning.
There now is no doubt that terrorism poses grave danger to the American
homeland. Internal security and emergency management capabilities will be
redoubled. But America will not adopt a fortress mentality. Effective protection
inevitably will require overseas military intervention, as well as diplomatic
and economic pressure to uproot the network of international terrorism at its
source.
The people and states that aid and abet terror will not receive a pass; they
will be indicted and targeted along with those who perpetrate the terrorist
acts, in accordance with international law and respect for non-combatants.
For those here in Washington charged with planning and preparing for the
nation’s security, today’s stale blueprint has gone out the window. The debate
about the defense budget and the QDR raging during the last month has been shown
intellectually shallow and politically fake. Defenders of the status quo have
gone on the defensive. Flogging the old threats no longer will wash.
Defense business as usual, with its hidebound commitment to large, heavy
arsenals designed to challenge peer competitors overseas, invites increasing
skepticism in the face of massive American casualties inflicted by a small band
of knife-wielding terrorists. A wide array of expensive military hardware now
seems nearly irrelevant to the major threat of global terrorism.
Spending billions on bean-counting reconnaissance satellites that lack any
ability to peer into Afghani caves or eavesdrop on small conclaves of radicals
plotting the destruction of America seems a dubious investment, as does throwing
billions of dollars at missile-defense projects meant to deal with imaginary
intercontinental missiles fired against the American homeland.
Last Tuesday’s glimpse into the fanatical terrorist mind may reinforce the
thinking of those who insist there is a serious prospect of an irrational launch
of ballistic missiles by a rogue leader at the United States. But the American
public will demand that its leaders deal more seriously with the threat so
obvious today.
A high-tech, costly national missile defense program no longer will be
politically tenable if it threatens to sponge up scarce resources so clearly
needed to deal with low-tech terrorism.
The advocates of broad military reform, aimed at creating new types of forces
designed to counter asymmetrical warfare — weapons and methods of delivery that
simply befuddle the muscle-bound American military of today — now have proof
that their arguments of the past decade have been sound.
The major growth stock in the American security portfolio is human intelligence,
targeted at terrorists and their sponsors. Field operatives with linguistic,
cultural and political sophistication stand a far better chance than futuristic
gizmos of detecting unfolding conspiracies against U.S. interests.
Another growth area is special operations: using agile, lethal fighters to take
out terrorists in their own backyards. Non-proliferation programs further must
be redoubled to thwart the nuclear, chemical, and biological aspirations of many
terrorist organizations and their sponsoring governments.
Strengthening domestic capabilities to respond to disasters and mitigate their
consequences, through programs to train and equip civilian personnel, also
should fare well in the budgetary sweeps.
As these and many other specific new defense priorities are sorted out, the
whole will vastly exceed the sum of the parts. A fundamental transformation of
America’s defense needs is being driven by the current national trauma, and is
gaining momentum independent of the U.S. security establishment.
Security is as much a state of mind as it is a physical condition. The
metamorphosis of terrorism from remote abstraction to barbaric reality is
creating a completely new organizing framework for U.S. national security
planning and programming.
America’s sense of security has been turned inside out. The psychological
conversion has happened. It is the sort of sweeping reconceptualization of
national defense that most observers believed impossible, given the traditional
budgetary and institutional politics supporting the status quo of a massive U.S.
force structure based on lumbering tanks, aircraft and ships designed to fight
wars of the past.
The defense bureaucracy now must follow up with details of a new national
security agenda, new military doctrine and new budget priorities. To do
otherwise would be simply unacceptable to the American people.
[This article first appeared in Defense News, Sept. 17, 2001]
By Dr. Bruce G. Blair
CDI President
bblair@cdi.org
Printer-Friendly Version
BACK TO THE TOP TERRORISM PROJECT HOME
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS THE TERRORIST NETWORK U.S. WEAPON SYSTEMS
ROLE OF INTELLIGENCE FOREIGN POLICY/SECURITY STRATEGY MORE U.S. TARGETS?
THE BRAVE NEW WORLD LINKS HOT SPOTS CDI ISSUE AREAS CDI HOME
|