War On Terror

Why the “War on Terror” Is Failing

Friday, July 28, 2006

The United States’ inability to yet bring an end—or even successful progress—to the war on terror demonstrates a clear decline in the mightiest military in history. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, drawing the U.S. belatedly into a full-throttle war. That war ended three years and eight months later when America dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, instantly breaking Japan’s will to fight and forcing its surrender. By contrast, though 9/11 occurred almost five years ago, the war it provoked is far from being over. Actually, by several measures the problems that gave birth to that event are much worse today. There are several reasons for this. Consider, to begin, the very definition of the war America is prosecuting. Entrapped in political correctness and thus uncomfortable with any unfavorable portrayals of Islam, America’s leaders have defined it as a “war on terror.” This is confusing. Terror is not an enemy, but a tactic. Failing to clearly identify Islamist extremism and its chief sponsor nations as the enemy is like defining World War ii as a “war on blitzkrieg” so as not to directly implicate Germany. Characterizations of the “terrorist threat” as vague, shadowy, elusive and ubiquitous are also misleading. The threat emanates predominantly from a few nations, one in particular: Iran. Just as the collapse of the ussr overnight reduced the Soviet communist threat, ending state support of Islamist terrorism would all but end terrorism. Trouble is, Iran has allies: most notably, Russia and China. Afghanistan was friendless and powerless—so the U.S. selected it (or, more accurately, the Taliban) as the first target in the “war on terror.” In terms of contributing to global terrorism, the Taliban was small potatoes compared to Iran, but this is the trouble one runs into after failing to properly define the enemy. America’s subsequent attack on Iraq (or, more accurately, Saddam Hussein) was even more problematic, because it eliminated the single greatest check on Iran, virtually guaranteeing the ascendancy of the Islamic Republic. Perhaps the present U.S. administration viewed Afghanistan and Iraq as tools to frighten Iran into submission, or to provoke a popular uprising against its radical leaders. Obviously, neither of these has happened. As a result of this confusion in defining the enemy, in five years the U.S. effectively has done nothing to target Iran or degrade its support of terrorism. Though Iran is a far less fearsome enemy than Japan was in World War ii, five years of “war on terror” have actually left it stronger. Its president is pushing to build nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Iranian agents fuel an insurgency in Iraq that kills American soldiers. Right now, Iran is directing, funding, arming and personally assisting in the Hamas and Hezbollah attacks that have transformed Israel and Lebanon into what looks to be the first battleground of World War iii. But the U.S. has done worse than merely not attack Iran: It has actually pursued dialogue with Iran, soliciting its help in bringing the bog in Iraq under control by reigning in the Shiites. In order to tidy up its business in Iraq—its primary theater in the “war on terror”—the “superpower” United States is requesting aid from the world’s top state sponsor of terror! This is the unbelievable situation, five years into the “war on terror.” On top of that, democratic elections in the region—encouraged by the U.S.—have strengthened Islamists’ political portfolios in Egypt and installed Islamists into the highest offices in the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the troubles in Afghanistan refuse to go away, and Iraq appears destined to end up with a government that will eventually ally with Iran. In other words, the “war on terror” is not reducing the threat of terror against America. How could this be? How can the deluge of dollars, steel, sweat, tears and blood America has dedicated to this cause—not to mention the lives of over 2,800 of its soldiers—fall so far short? Consider. To the ancient nation of Israel, God promised manifold blessings for obedience to His laws. Among these was the promise of security through supernatural protection: “And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid … neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword” (Leviticus 26:6-8). Clearly the U.S. is not receiving this blessing today. In fact, objectively viewing the advances made by radical Islamists in the past five years, one might be inclined to believe it is they who are receiving it. The counterpart to the promised blessing of victory over enemies is God’s warning about terrifying curses for disobedience. The idea of being under a curse may seem ancient and superstitious in this modern, scientific age. But if you believe the Bible, you know that curses are real—even today. To rebellious Israel and its descendants (which include the United States), God warns, “And I will break the pride of your power … And your strength shall be spent in vain …” (Leviticus 26:19-20). Consider the staggering implications of these scriptures. They imply that these modern nations would have power, and pride in that power—they would have military strength. This fact is corroborated by other prophecies about the modern descendants of Israel (e.g. Genesis 24:60; 49:22-26; Micah 5:7-9). But—because of these nations’ disobedience—God would break that pride, and thus—as a curse—all that power would be wasted, squandered! Is America now under this curse? Absolutely. There could be no more perfect description of the U.S. today—still far and away the greatest military power on Earth—than to say that the pride in its power has been broken, and that it spends its strength in vain. American officials defend hopelessly ineffective policy and call it “moral” use of power, or “just war,” intended to show how ethical, decent and principled war should be. In the end, however, this methodology makes America a triple loser: 1) true victory is impossible to achieve; 2) liberal elements of Western society are never satisfied that the war is altruistic enough; and 3) enemies view all such efforts as weakness—all the more cause to press on toward ultimate victory. The harder the U.S. works to implement a “just war” doctrine, the deeper the hole it digs for itself. Put in biblical terms, the U.S. is spending its strength in vain. We must be able to recognize a curse when we see it.