A War on al Qaeda

Brennan, CSIS, war on terror

The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, today. It seems the takeaway from the event was his declaration that the "war on terror" is over. Instead, it's just a war on al Qaeda.

The whole speech is worth listening to in full, but to focus on this specific issue. The "war on terror" was always a silly formulation, like saying we're going to have a war on bullets. Terror is a weapon, not an entity. The idea of framing the current situation as a war on al Qaeda specifically has utility insofar as the word war summons us to a certain seriousness about the threat. But it also raises the question of what we're doing in Pakistan, and why we're putting a lot more blood and treasure on the line to battle the Taliban. They're not al Qaeda, but it sure looks like we're fighting a war against them as well.

Brennan argues that we must confront al Qaeda's "allies" - not just the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but around the world. The trouble is, what constitutes an ally? If a group receives funding or advice from al Qaeda in Pakistan to carry out a local attack in Yemen, should we read into that a threat that could eventually strike the homeland? Would the mere existence of groups loosely linked to al Qaeda compel the U.S. to intervene?

The danger with such a strategy is that it will boost bin Laden's program of stitching together localized insurgencies into a pan-Islamic battle against the U.S. By plunging in with aid and arms anytime a local despot cries "al Qaeda!" we could be doing bin Laden's work for him. That's not to say we shouldn't watch al Qaeda's global tentacles, just that we need to look before we leap.