The War On Terrorism After Iraq

Dazzling military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq may mislead us about the war on terrorism. If it were merely a matter of rogue states, we could think that progress is being made. But technological progress is putting into the hands of deviant groups and individuals destructive capabilities that were once limited primarily to governments and armies.

Even if eliminating all terrorist incidents proves impossible, reducing their frequency and lethal potential will make a large difference in their impact on our societies. The world needs a multi-faceted strategy that de-legitimizes attacks on civilians as a method of conflict; discourages states from providing resources or safe harbor to those who use such methods; hardens our targets at home; denies terrorists easy access to weapons of mass destruction; and reduces incentives to use terrorism.

Military measures may not deal with the largest part of the problem, but they are essential sometimes. Depriving Al Qaeda of its Afghan safe haven was not sufficient, but it was necessary. The number of states sponsoring terrorism has decreased over the past decade. Diplomacy backed by military threat can reduce the number further. Some failed states are so chaotically organized that they cannot be deterred from providing a haven for terrorists. In such instances, military assistance may be relevant; in others, intervention may be necessary.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

Log in;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.