TERRORISM

Just finished reading a "national bestseller," The Lessons of Terror by Caleb Carr, military historian and novelist. It is a thought-provoking book, which, I think, will upset both liberals and conservatives in different ways. I like his definition of terror (the BBC and CBC seem to have trouble using the word or defining it). Terror is when civilians or non-combatants are indiscriminately attacked. As a result terror could be used to describe Sherman's march to the sea in the civil war or the British naval blockade of Germany in World War I. He sees waging war on civilians as self-defeating (I agree) which only tends to lead to increasing violence, but also to stronger resistance. As we know from World War II, the strategic bombing of civilian targets in World War II only increased the German will to resist. It would appear the U.S. military is doing a better job in both Iraq and Afghanistan of not waging war on civilians. Using his reasoning the violence of Islamic radicals will only turn people against them. For Carr, terrorism is war.

Some items of note:

• During the Clinton administration's eight years, . . ., despite the fact that the natures and purpose of such global terrorist organizations as Al Qaeda were well-known, almost all federal funds requested for antiterrorism efforts were targeted at detective and intelligence work, while preemptive military strikes against terrorist leaders, networks, or bases were ignored.
  
• He believes Rumsfeld is engaged in serious military reforms to bring the military up to the speed needed to fight terrorism. However, some in the military bureaucracy and especially in the Congress are want to keep doing it the old way. Military history shows that the establishment is resistant to change and as a result nations are often caught with an outmoded army or outmoded method of fighting when a war erupts.
  
• He makes some interesting comparisons between terrorism and the problem of piracy in the 17th-19th centuries.
  
• Those who assert that historical guilt should tie the hands of presently civilized nations do no more than peddle a strain of fatuous historical reasoning that has always been pernicioulsy recurrent.
  
• Modern warfare has tended to focus on destruction rather than military victory.
  
• The greaters masters and theorists of guerilla war have understood the need to maintain the loyalty of the civilian population. . .. [Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh] He later notes that Ho Chi Minh never sent agents into America to bring the war home to Americans. If he had, it would have created a US anger and determination that might have led to a much more determined American effort in Vietnam.
  
• Dissolve the CIA--it has created more problems than it has solved.
  
• G.H.W. Bush's 1990 Kuwait strategy: Yet the international coalition had taken so long to array itself against Iraq that Saddam had had more than ample opportunity to hide and relocate much of his most important equipment. Building coalitions takes time and alerts the enemy.
  
• Clarity of war aims is essential.
  
• Reagan's secretary of defense Caspar Windberger's 6 guidelines before sending in US troops: 1) the "engagement" should be "vital to our national interest"; 2) America should have "the ckear intention of winning"; 3) the military and political objectives should be "clearly defined"; 4) those objectives must be "continually reassessed and adjusted"; 5) the undertaking must "have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress"; and 6) military action should be only a "last resort."