Personal Finance

James Chamblee · Guest

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902
586.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Our Worsening Terrorism Problem

By David Ignatius
Post
Thursday, June 30, 2005; A23

President Bush tried to defend his Iraq policy Tuesday night as a means of
combating terrorism. It was a standard Bush theme, a replay of arguments he
has been using for three years. But there's a contradiction staring him in
the face -- one so obvious that it often gets overlooked.

The war in Iraq has in fact made America's terrorism problem worse. The CIA
reached that judgment in a recent report, and any fair-minded person would
come to the same conclusion. By toppling the cruelly repressive regime of
Saddam Hussein, the United States turned Iraq into a new breeding ground for
jihadists. That doesn't mean the war was wrong, but it does make it hard to
justify as an anti-terrorism stratagem.

We all hope American and Iraqi forces will contain the insurgency there, but
what happens then? The answer, unfortunately, is that the terrorists go
elsewhere -- as did Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan recruits. I'm told the
intelligence community speaks of this problem as "bleed out" -- a graphic
metaphor for how terrorist cells would seep into neighboring countries and
conduct operations there and, indeed, around the world.

Here's where the fundamental contradiction in Bush's strategy becomes clear.
If Iraq has shown anything, it is that there's no easy equation between
democratic government and success in containing terrorism. In the short run,
prying the lid off a tightly controlled society such as Iraq may actually
make the terrorism problem worse. The cruel instruments of repression are
gone, while the constraints of an orderly, law-abiding, democratic society
are not yet present.

Bush's answer is that democracy, over time, will bring stability to the
Middle East and contain the terrorism problem. I agree, but given the stakes
for the United States and the world, the administration must examine the
short-run consequences of political change, which is that it might lead to
more terrorism, not less. That's why the proper goal in these changing
societies isn't simply democracy but the rule of law.

Consider several practical examples. Last month, Jordan's King Abdullah
removed his intelligence chief, Saad Kheir, as part of his effort to push
for democratic reforms. The king believed that Kheir had been meddling in
domestic politics and blocking his reform agenda. But Kheir was also one of
the wiliest anti-terrorism operators in the world, whose agents had broken a
string of al Qaeda plots against the United States and Jordan. Will a more
democratic Jordan be as useful an ally in the fight against terrorism? I
hope so, but it's certainly possible that in the short run a freer society
won't be as successful in controlling potential terrorists.

Or take the case of Egypt. President Hosni Mubarak's undemocratic regime is
in many ways an abomination. But it does have one area of undisputed
success -- combating terrorism. Egypt's chief of intelligence, Omar
Suleiman, is said to be a clever spymaster who excels in counterterrorism
operations. But Egypt's Mukhabarat, like Jordan's, is a symbol of
repression, and you could argue that in a more democratic Egypt, Suleiman
will go the way of Kheir. The haunting question is whether, by weakening
state control, democratic change will undermine Egypt's ability to contain
the terrorist network that produced Ayman Zawahiri and other al Qaeda
leaders.

Syria is another puzzle in the trade-off between democracy and disorder.
Bush administration officials are so fed up with President Bashar Assad's
foot-dragging in suppressing Iraqi insurgents that some officials would be
happy to see a change of regime. In the short run, the most likely
alternative would be a palace coup, in which a more hard-nosed member of the
ruling Alawite Muslim clan seized power, such as the president's brother,
Maher. But that probably wouldn't last; Syria's Sunni Muslim majority would
be likely to mount a violent challenge -- organized at least in part by the
Muslim Brotherhood underground. Would that make Syria a more reliable
partner in countering terrorism? Probably not.

In raising these grim scenarios, I don't mean to undercut the president's
basic arguments, which I endorse. A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would make the
terrorism problem there worse; what's more, an American retreat under fire
would reinforce the argument bin Laden has made in his writings that if you
hit America hard, it will fold. And, finally, I don't think the United
States, over the long run, has any alternative to pressing for democratic
reform in the Middle East.

But the daily news from Iraq is a reminder that we are in dangerous
territory. America has a lot of chips on the table now, betting on outcomes
that are uncertain. Bush should be wary of adding to these risks without
examining them very, very carefully.

	Personal Finance Forum Index -> Retirement Planning	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1