[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S10231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFEATING TERRORIST NETWORKS
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, throughout the 4 years since the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on this country, it has been
clear to me that our first national security priority must be combating
and defeating the terrorist networks that seek to do us harm. Former
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke wrote a
thought-provoking piece about the ideological battleground that is a
vitally important part of our challenge, and about the importance of
public diplomacy efforts in our overall campaign. It was published in
the Washington Post on September 9, and I ask that it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2005]
Our Enemy's Face
(By Richard Holbrooke)
Let us take a hard look at some extremely important words:
``the global war on terrorism.'' Since Sept. 11, this
phrase--often reduced in Washingtonese to ``GWOT''--has
entered the English language, popularized by journalists and
administration officials. It is the way our highest national
priority is described by almost everyone.
But ``GWOT'' is not an accurate description of America's
enemy or of what we are engaged in. Unless people know whom
we are fighting, it will be virtually impossible to win the
war of ideas that is such a key part of this struggle. The
new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, Karen
Hughes, who is charged with primary responsibility for this
part of the war, has a chance to fix the problem, but only if
she is willing to change some deeply ingrained rhetoric and
the political reasons behind it.
Stopping terrorists, using all necessary means, is vital in
protecting the Nation. We cannot win without the use of force
and first-rate intelligence. But suicide bombers are merely
the expendable, deluded cannon fodder of ruthless ideologues.
This has been true with terrorists throughout history. The
long-term battle is against the underlying ideas and leaders
behind these specific groups of terrorists.
Despite factionalism and fierce doctrinal disputes, our
enemies, broadly speaking, constitute a movement, with goals,
gurus, ideologues, myths and martyrs. They share a core set
of virulently anti-Western beliefs and have common goals: to
destroy the moderate (and still majority) wing of Islam, to
establish Islamist theocracies that look backward toward a
mythic ``golden age,'' to seek the destruction of Israel, and
to inflict maximum damage and human suffering through acts of
terrorism.
Among its leaders, there is one whose face is as
internationally recognized today as Adolf Hitler's was in
1941. He was responsible for Sept. 11. Yet the United States
has not made it a primary goal to expose Osama bin Laden as
the monster he is, something Roosevelt and Winston Churchill
did to Hitler, and American leadership did to communism
during the Cold War by demonstrating its moral and
intellectual bankruptcy. Bin Laden (unlike Saddam Hussein)
has been virtually ignored in public by official Washington.
Terrorism is not an end in itself; it is a tactic, just as
it has been for countless other movements throughout history
that sought to destroy or paralyze the established order, or
attract attention to their cause. Over 2 years ago, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, among others, pointed out that a ``war on
terror'' was like a ``war on blitzkrieg'' or a ``war on
war.'' For this important insight, the former national
security adviser was both attacked and ignored. During the
2004 campaign, I stumbled into a public dispute with senior
administration officials, including Vice President Cheney,
when, as a John Kerry surrogate, I told a New York Times
Magazine writer that the phrase could be considered a
metaphor and compared it to phrases such as the ``war on
poverty.'' For this both Kerry and I were assailed as naive,
and I was asked, in the sneering tones of certain cable
television interviewers, if I really thought we were at war
with a ``metaphor.''
Of course not. But despite the grand rhetoric, does anyone
think the United States is actually fighting ``terror'' or
``terrorism'' globally? We may detest terrorism in Sri Lanka,
but we are not engaged in that civil war. Nor in Nepal,
northern Uganda, Aceh or countless places around the world.
By calling both Iraq and Sept. 11 part of the war on
terrorism, the administration has been partially successful
in linking public support for the less popular war in Iraq to
the universally supported fight against al Qaeda, even though
no convincing evidence has been produced connecting the two.
No other explanation has proved as valuable in keeping
Americans, albeit in declining numbers, behind our
increasingly controversial involvement in Iraq. ``GWOT,'' as
Dan Froomkin wrote on The Post's Web site last month, is
``the metaphor that has consistently been [President Bush's]
most potent weapon in the battle for public opinion.''
The struggle against violent extremism will continue, of
course, long after bin Laden is eliminated by death or
capture. It will be a long conflict, with casualties and high
costs, just like the efforts against fascism and communism.
But fundamentally this is a war of ideas, and a more
aggressive, direct attack on those ideas, and the men behind
them, is necessary.
For starters, Osama bin Laden must be discredited, even if
he remains at large. He is not, as some argue, irrelevant
simply because his war will continue after he is gone
(although, of course, it will). He remains a folk hero to
millions of Muslims; youths wear T-shirts of him and children
are named after him throughout the Muslim world. The United
States should stop ignoring him and his henchmen; exposing
them must become a top priority. He is a false prophet who
incites mass murder, but he is clearly eloquent and
charismatic. His ideas, no matter how insane they seem to us,
appeal to many people. (Hitler had those qualities, too.)
Which brings us back to Karen Hughes. With her enormous
bureaucratic clout, derived from her closeness with President
Bush, the new undersecretary of state has a chance to make
history. To do so, however, she must change some fundamental
parts of our public message, and then devise better delivery
systems for it--precisely what she did so effectively for
Bush during so many campaigns.
Hughes should begin by revisiting what her own boss said on
Aug. 6, 2004, speaking without a text. ``We actually misnamed
the war on terror,'' the president said that day. ``It ought
to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not
believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a
weapon.'' He was, inexplicably, laughed at for this remark,
and rapidly retreated to safer rhetorical terrain. More
recently, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to
replace ``GWOT'' with the ``global struggle against violent
extremism''--a somewhat more accurate phrase--the president
immediately overruled him and again linked GWOT closely to
Iraq during a series of public appearances.
But the president got it right last year. Words matter, and
we need better ones to explain to the world, and to
ourselves, who the enemy is. How about making it simple and
specific: something like ``the war against Osama bin laden
and his followers''? And then create an all-out, no-holds-
barred campaign to expose, ridicule and destroy everything he
and his ilk stand for--murder, horror, intolerance,
disrespect for human life and a false view of Islam.
____________________