Counterterrorism Strategy for the Next U.S. Presidential Administration

Introduction
One of the goals of the G. W. Bush Administration, which launched the War on Terrorism campaign, was to “end the state sponsorship of terrorism” (White House, 2003). The top goals of the Bush Administration, however, were to defeat Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi, as well to identify terrorist organizations and demolish them. The first two goals have been accomplished. The latter is dependent upon eradicating state sponsorship of terrorism. Thus, as shall be seen in this strategy paper, ending the state sponsorship of terrorism should be the number one goal of this administration, as state sponsorship is the primary means by which terrorism continues to this day (Malzahn 2002).
Successes and Failures Since 2001
While the U.S. has been successful at defeating terrorists since 9/11, it has not done as well when it comes to defeating the idea of terrorism (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2017). Even though ISIS has been reduced in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, the ideology promoted by ISIS and other jihadists is still spreading around the world. It is important to note, however, that many of these terrorists groups and their organizations would not exist were it not for support either directly or indirectly from the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UK and the U.S. These nations often lend support, training, financing and weapons to “freedom fighters” who end up joining a terrorist organization or who are already part of these groups (Freeman, 2018). Thus, we can continue to wage war against terrorists, but if we continue to supply, arm, train and facilitate individuals and groups who become terrorists all our counterterrorism efforts are for naught.
Successes
Successes since 9/11 include the death of Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi. Numerous other high-profile terrorists have been killed including thousands of insurgents in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Nordland & Mashal, 2019).
Failures
The war in Afghanistan has not been a success. The Taliban is still in control and currently the U.S. is positioned to negotiate a withdrawal though this goes against recommendations from the Pentagon (Nordland & Mashal, 2019).
Saddam Hussein was captured, tried and executed in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion, based on reports that Hussein had mobile weapons labs and was in possession of WMDs—none of which were ever found. The intelligence was later shown to be faulty and Iraq has been destabilized and is on the verge of joining Libya as a failed state. Much of the Middle East has suffered destruction and war, from Syria to Yemen to Africa, as a result (either directly or indirectly) of the War on Terror. The U.S. is wanted out of Iraq by the current Iraqi government. Saudi Arabia and Israel both want the U.S. to wage war on Iran. Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria all want the U.S. presence of troops out of the area. International relations are at a low. The U.S. counterterrorism strategy up to now has thus led to some successes but considerably more failures in terms of lives lost and states destabilized or destroyed altogether, creating hotbeds for future terrorist breeding ground. The failure of the War on Terror can also be quantified in dollar terms: according to most estimates, it has cost the U.S. $6 trillion.
Comparative Analysis
The strategy of the U.S. compared to other countries is enlightening. It has been the U.S. strategy to wage war directly against terrorist groups by bombing campaign, boots on the ground, and indirectly through the use of proxy forces like the Free Syrian Army. This compares not well to the strategy of Russia, which has coordinated its military forces with those of the Syrian government, the Iranian government, Hezbollah and others to wage a campaign directly against known terrorist cells. The Russian strategy has enabled Russia to be seen as a favorable influence by governments in the Middle East, from Turkey to Iran, and thus the nation is trusted to help broker peace deals between the Turks, the Kurds, the Syrians, and other stakeholders. ISIS has largely been defeated in Syria thanks to the strategy of Russia and its coordinated attacks on ISIS with its partners. The U.S. has, on the contrary, given support to the Free Syrian Army, which it calls freedom fighters but which Syria and Russia and Iran have all called a proxy terrorist organization working with other terrorist groups in the region.
Instead of coordinating with such groups, the U.S. should be following closely the strategy of Russia, as it has been able to win friends in the Middle East and influence outcomes. The U.S. on the other hand has been told to leave Syria by Assad, withdraw from the Turkish border by Erdogan, has been accused by Iran of supporting terrorism in the Middle East, and has been supporting the Saudi war against Yemen. Iraq has ordered the U.S. out of the country, though the U.S. has yet to comply with this command. It is essentially seen as a hostile invader by every state in the Middle East apart from Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Time to End the Global War on Terrorism
It is time to consider ending the global war on terrorism. Syria has been secured thanks to the help of the Russian and Iranian militaries combining with Assad’s forces to prevent ISIS from toppling the country. The wars in Afghanistan could be brought to a closure pending on negotiations with the Taliban. The Global War on Terrorism has been ongoing for nearly two decades and the war is no closer to a conclusion that when it was launched. The best way to conclude this unhappy chapter in American foreign policy is to end all aid of all kinds to foreign combatants and foreign states who may be funneling aid to provocateurs and terrorist cells.
As there is no real way to tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter in the current landscape, it is reckless and haphazard of the U.S. to embark on a counterterrorism strategy that includes aiding, training, arming and supporting groups that call themselves freedom fighters though their allegiance is dubious at best (Freeman, 2018). The many rat lines that extend, moreover, from interventions like the one to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya has only added to the bolstering of terrorist groups’ strength. Interventions like the one in Libya and Iraq should stop, for they simply create breeding grounds for terrorist groups, who seek to recruit disaffected people in these areas who have no other options than to join a group and seek revenge against the West.
Global terrorism cannot be ended by waging war against populaces. It must be ended peacefully by withdrawing forces from these parts of the world where the U.S.’s presence is not wanted. The U.S. must respect the sovereignty of states like Syria and Iraq. It must resist the overtures of states like Saudi Arabia and Israel—both of which have been condemned by the UN for their human rights violations. That the U.S. continues to count these countries as allies is a stain on its character. The U.S. strategy of counterterrorism should focus on ending state sponsorship of terrorism and both Israel and Saudi Arabia are well-known as supporters of terrorism in their regions.
Thus it is time to end the Global War on Terror and allow those states that can to continue the domestic fights against insurgents. This will be the most effective strategy going forward. All aid should be eliminated to foreign countries as a safe guard. States such as Saudi Arabia and Israel cannot be trusted to not support further terrorist actions, since they both stand to gain, still, from seeing Assad overthrown. The U.S. should not be part of such plans and should abstain from aiding them monetarily as it only allows the problem of terrorism to continue to fester.
Further Threats that Require Emphasis
Cyber terrorism needs to be a top focus on the U.S. from this point on, as the nation’s infrastructure is at risk should it be attacked and the infrastructure knocked offline. This is a focus that is much different from the current focus on the Middle East and the various terrorist groups there. By cutting aid to foreign countries, the problem of state sponsorship of terrorism could be greatly and significantly impacted. It would reduce the risk of funds being funneled or given directly to proxy groups and terrorists. It would allow the U.S. to focus instead on securing its own cyber infrastructure and combating cyber terrorist organizations like Anonymous, which has already targeted numerous cities and facilities in the U.S.
The threat of cyber terrorism is real, and the recent history of Venezuela is a case in point: the country’s electric grid was knocked offline following an attempted but unsuccessful coup of Maduro. The country was in the dark for days and the economic and social impact of such an attack in the U.S. would be intense: businesses would not be able to operated, consumers would not be able to shop, and life would grind to a standstill. Riots could break out in cities as people begin to go hungry, and the U.S. could end up becoming destabilized just like countries in the Middle East.
Another terrorist threat is the drug trafficking that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. The current trafficking of fentanyl which is 100x stronger than heroin is a major concern and should be viewed as a terrorist threat. It has been shown that much of today’s Fentanyl trafficking is being run through China and the administration should thus consider toughening its stance on China and forcing the country to tighten its oversight in order to prevent drugs like fentanyl from being shipped to the U.S. Terrorism should not be conceived narrowly any longer: it is not just jihadis who use terror—other nation states and non-state-actors use it as well in different ways, such as China with drugs and Anonymous with cyber terrorism. The U.S. should be focusing on these areas after pulling out of the Middle East and cutting all aid to foreign countries.
Conclusion
The administration’s strategic approach to counterterrorism should be to end the state sponsorship of terrorism. The only way to effectively do this is to end all foreign aid. States like Saudi Arabia and Israel will no longer be able to provide funds to terrorist groups as proxy agents to wage their own wars on nations like Yemen or Syria. The U.S. should not be supporting freedom fighters in the Middle East as their connections to terrorists are too well-known. The U.S. should instead focus on cyber terrorism and drug terrorism and began working with other countries to address these threats, the same way Russia has coordinated with Iran and Syria to defeat ISIS.
References
Bipartisan Policy Center. (2017). Defeating terrorists, not terrorism. Retrieved from https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/counterterrorism-policy-from-911-to-isis/
Englehardt, T. (2018). America’s war on terror. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-war-on-terror-has-cost-taxpayers-5-6-trillion/
Freeman, M. (2018). ISIS Is a US-Israeli Creation. Top Ten “Indications.” Retrieved from https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627
Malzahn, S. M. (2002). State Sponsorship and Support of International Terrorism: Customary Norms of State Responsibility. Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 26, 83.
Nordland, R. & Mashal, M. (2019). U.S. and Taliban Edge Toward Deal to End America’s Longest War. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-peace-deal.html
White House. (2003). National strategy for combating terrorism. Retrieved from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-7.html