Can We Sustain the War on Terror?

Judah Grunstein makes an astute point:

Seven years and a misguided redirection of resources to Iraq later, we essentially face the same strategic situation in Afghanistan that we did on Sept. 12, 2001, with the major difference being that the hard to reach locations have been shifted eastward into Pakistan. The question isn't whether the goal of a stable, less oppressive Afghanistan is a noble one, but whether it is an essential one, and if so, whether it is achievable with the resources we (and our NATO and Afghan allies) are able and willing to commit. I'd argue that the answer is no, no (no and no), and no. In that order.

Two weeks ago James Joyner observed of CIA Director Hayden's speech that the logic of America's counter-terrorism policy was to, in effect, remove every possible lawless and ungovernable sanctuary that jihadists could take refuge in around the world.

Of course, it's not really possible to erase every possible terrorist sanctuary. Let's posit the most spectacular turnaround for Afghanistan and the destruction of al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the FATA in Pakistan. Does al-Qaeda quit? Of course not. The rump elements travel to Sudan or Somalia or Yemen or Lebanon or Iran. When you consider that technology will enable smaller groups to communicate and coordinate more effectively with fewer resources, a "safe haven" can be an Internet cafe in Hamburg.

However, it's easy to see why such a posture enjoys bi-partisan enthusiasm. On the left, people like Susan Rice (potentially our UN Ambassador) can funnel money into aid and nation-building projects they would have championed irrespective of the terrorist threat under the rubric of counter-terrorism. On the right, it's an opportunity to extend and entrench our military hegemony. And, like many government programs, it has completely unrealistic aims which ensures an open-ended commitment of resources. Everyone wins!