What Kind of War?
By Michael T. Klare

President Bush has called upon the nation to engage in a
"war against terrorism," a war that must be pursued until
final "victory" is achieved. Most Americans support tough
action aimed at the eradication of Osama bin Laden's
terrorist networks and those of like-minded extremists. But
it is not a war against terrorism, per se, that Bush
envisions, but a war to ensure continued U.S. military
dominance in the Middle East.

In thinking about the war to come, it is important to
recognize that "terrorism" is not a cause, like communism,
or an identifiable organization, like the PLO or the
IRA. Rather, it is a strategy.  Throughout history, those
who are weak in traditional forms of military power have
used unconventional tactics, including terrorist attacks, to
overcome those with greater military strength. In the world
today, many groups are using such tactics -- the Tamil
Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Basques in Spain, the rebel forces
in Chechnya, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the
Philippines, Hamas in Israel and so on. There is no evidence
that President Bush seeks to make war on all of these
groups; rather, he clearly intends to fight those who
threaten American interests in the Persian Gulf region.

The United States has, of course, been involved in conflict
in the Persian Gulf for a very long time. Ever since the
British pulled out of the area in 1972, U.S. forces have
been on call to protect friendly governments -- especially
Saudi Arabia and the conservative Gulf sheikdoms -- and to
resist any threat to the free flow of oil. This was the
genesis of the "Carter Doctrine" of 1980, and formed the
backdrop for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Since Desert
Storm, the United States has amassed sufficient military
power in the Gulf area to deter its two leading antagonists,
Iran and Iraq, from conducting a direct assault on Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. Some 20,000 to 25,000 U.S.  military
personnel are in the area at all times, and large quantities
and arms and equipment have been "pre-positioned" in the
area to permit a rapid expansion of U.S. strength.

Although successful in deterring established states like
Iran and Iraq, the U.S. military buildup has not succeeded
in preventing attacks on U.S. interests by extremists and
irregular forces, like the terrorist networks associated
with Osama bin Laden. These groups abhor the presence of
American military personnel -- most of whom are non-Muslims
-- in the vicinity of Islam's holiest sites, especially
Jidda and Mecca. They also resent U.S. support for Israel
and the continuing U.S.-backed economic sanctions on Iraq,
which are said to punish ordinary Muslim Iraqis
unfairly. The anti-American extremists of the Persian Gulf
area know they cannot expel the U.S. presence from their
midst through conventional military means, so they rely on
terrorism. They bombed the U.S.-supported headquarters of
the Saudi Arabian National Guard in 1995, the Khobar Towers
(a U.S. military apartment complex) in 1996, the
U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS
Cole in 2000. Now they have struck in New York and
Washington.

As claimed by President Bush and many others, the terrorist
strikes on September 11 were an act of war against the
United States. But they were not mere expressions of
anti-American or anti-Western sentiment, as suggested by
some. Rather, they were a major assault in the continuing
struggle between the United States and its adversaries for
control of the Persian Gulf. Now, a new chapter in that
conflict is about to unfold.

From all that we are hearing in Washington, President Bush
intends a major escalation of this continuing war. "We are
planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our
country and eradicate the evil of terrorism," he declared on
Saturday. In all likelihood, this will involve air strikes
against terrorist camps in Afghanistan, along with
commando-type raids to seize bin Laden and his
associates. It is also likely to involve punishing attacks
on Iraq and other countries that may have harbored bin
Laden's teams or assisted them in some manner.  Ground
troops may be sent into the area to secure key positions
(for example, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan)
and to subdue any resistance to U.S. attacks.

No one can predict where all of this will lead. The Soviets
invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prevent the rise of an
anti-Soviet regime, only to depart in ignominious defeat
some six years later. No doubt U.S.  forces will work very
hard to avoid the mistakes made by Moscow, but the terrain
and the environment are not conducive to American-style
high-tech warfare. It is also hard to know whether ordinary
Afghans will welcome American troops as liberators or, as in
the case of Soviet forces, as alien invaders. President Bush
has received a strong mandate from Congress and the American
people to take vigorous action to punish those responsible
for last Tuesday's attacks on New York and Washington. But
he owes it to all of us to be honest about his intentions
and -- without going into military details -- to spell out
the implications of the various scenarios he is
considering. Congress should also be given an opportunity to
discuss the relative merits of various military options --
as occurred in January 1991, during the historic Senate
debate on U.S. strategy in the Gulf that preceded the onset
of Operation Desert Storm. It is abundantly clear that a
campaign against those directly responsible for Tuesday's
attacks, aimed at bringing them to justice, is something
that most Americans support. But a bloody, protracted war in
the wasteland of Southwest Asia would not only fail to
eradicate terrorism -- it could produce sharp divisions at
home as well.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security
studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the
author of "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global
Conflict" (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2001).