[Kabar-indonesia] FP/Foreign Policy: The Terrorism Index

[Joyo at aol.com]

FP / Foreign Policy [US] 
July/August 2006

The Terrorism Index

By FOREIGN POLICY & The Center For American Progress    

Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not
according to more than 100 of America's top
foreign-policy hands. They see a national security
apparatus in disrepair and a government that is
failing to protect the public from the next attack.

Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
Americans understandably rallied around the flag.
Having just suffered the deadliest attack ever on U.S.
soil, huge percentages believed another attack was
imminent. But Americans also had enormous faith that
the Global War on Terror would help keep them safe.
Just one month after 9/11, for instance, 94 percent of
Americans told an ABC News/Washington Post poll that
they approved of how the fight against terrorism was
being handled. The United States then quickly went to
war in Afghanistan, closing down a terrorist sanctuary
and capturing or killing a number of high-level al
Qaeda operatives in the process.

Since 2001, terrorists have found their targets on
almost every continent, with bombings in Bali, London,
Madrid, and elsewhere. Five years on, however, America
has yet to experience another attack. But Americans
appear less convinced that their country is winning
the war on terror. In the face of persisting threats,
including a growing number of terrorist attacks around
the world, numerous reports show that Americans are
losing faith in their government's ability to wage the
war successfully and to protect them from the
terrorists' next volley. Barely half of Americans
today approve of the way in which the war on terror is
being handled, and more than one third believe the
United States is less safe today than it was before
9/11.

These pessimistic public perceptions could easily be
attributed to the high cost, in both treasure and
lives, of counterterrorism efforts. After all,
Americans are constantly being told by their elected
leaders that their pessimism is wrong, that the war is
being won. But they're also told that another attack
is inevitable. Which is it? To find out, FOREIGN
POLICY and the Center for American Progress teamed up
to survey more than 100 of America's top
foreign-policy experts—Republicans and Democrats
alike. The FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress
Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to
mine the highest echelons of America's foreign-policy
establishment for their assessment of how the United
States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim
was to draw some definitive conclusions about the
war's priorities, policies, and progress from the very
people who have run America's national security
apparatus over the past half century. Participants
include people who have served as secretary of state,
national security advisor, retired top commanders from
the U.S. military, seasoned members of the
intelligence community, and distinguished academics
and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index
participants have worked in the U.S. government—of
these more than half were in the executive branch, one
third in the military, and 17 percent in the
intelligence community.

Despite today's highly politicized national security
environment, the index results show striking consensus
across political party lines. A bipartisan majority
(84 percent) of the index's experts say the United
States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six
percent of the index's experts see a world today that
is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they
agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its
homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an
attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These
dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts'
belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in
serious disrepair. "Foreign-policy experts have never
been in so much agreement about an administration's
performance abroad," says Leslie Gelb, president
emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an
index participant. "The reason is that it's clear to
nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally
unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with
military force and threats of force."

Respondents sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a
number of key areas of national security, including
public diplomacy, intelligence, and homeland security.
Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible
for fighting the war on terror received poor marks.
The experts also said that recent reforms of the
national security apparatus have done little to make
Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform
America's intelligence community, for instance, more
than half of the index's experts said that creating
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
has had no positive impact in the war against terror.
"Intelligence reform so far has been largely limited
to structural reorganization that in most cases
produced new levels of bureaucracy in an already
overly bureaucratic system," says index participant
Bill Gertz, a journalist who has covered the
intelligence community for more than 20 years.

The index's experts were similarly critical of most of
the policy initiatives put forward by the U.S.
Congress and President George W. Bush since September
11. Eighty-one percent, for instance, believe the
detention of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay,
Cuba, negatively affects the war on terror. The
index's experts also disapprove of how America is
handling its relations with European allies, how it is
confronting threatening regimes in North Korea and
Iran, how it is controlling the spread of weapons of
mass destruction, and its dealings with failing
states, to name just a few. "We are losing the war on
terror because we are treating the symptoms and not
the cause," says index participant Anne-Marie
Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
"[O]ur insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology
has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of
our time ... feeds al Qaeda's vision of the world."

These conclusions about the United States' performance
in the war thus far are all the more troubling
considering that, although Americans appear to be
growing tired of the war on terror, the index's
experts appear to believe that the battle has just
begun. Accordingly, a majority agrees that the war
requires more emphasis on a victory of ideas, not just
guns. That is hardly surprising, considering that
nearly 80 percent believe a widespread rejection of
radical ideologies in the Islamic world is a critical
element to victory. To win the battle of ideas, the
experts say, America must place a much higher emphasis
on its nonmilitary tools. More than two thirds say
that U.S. policymakers must strengthen the United
Nations and other multilateral institutions. At the
same time, the experts indicate that the U.S.
government must think more creatively about threats.
Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S.
national security, nearly half said loose nukes and
other weapons of mass destruction, while just one
third said al Qaeda and terrorism, and a mere 4
percent said Iran. Five years after the attacks of
September 11, it's a reminder that the greatest
challenges may still lie ahead.

-------------------------------------------------------

Sidebar: With Friends Like These

Wars have a way of making unlikely bedfellows, and the
Global War on Terror is apparently no different.

Asked to name the country that has produced the
largest number of global terrorists, the index's
foreign-policy experts pointed to Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
and Pakistan—three of America's marquee allies in the
Muslim world. Nearly two thirds (62 percent)
identified Saudi Arabia as the leading culprit.
Thirteen percent pointed to Egypt, and 11 percent said
Pakistan produces the most terrorists. "The jihadist
movement," says index participant and Sarah Lawrence
College Professor Fawaz Gerges, "was born in Egypt in
the late 1960s. After September 11, however, Saudi
Arabia has emerged as the leading theater of
jihadist-Salafist thought and action."

Although these three states may be widely believed to
be incubating terrorists, the cooperation they have
offered the United States in fighting terrorism
presents a more mixed picture. Approximately two
thirds of the experts say that U.S. cooperation with
Egypt and Pakistan has been effective. The experts are
more divided as to whether Saudi Arabia is doing what
it can to counter the terrorist threat.

These perceptions cut to the heart of some of the
dilemmas facing the United States. Egypt, for
instance, has received more than $50 billion in U.S.
military and economic assistance since 1979, yet it
resisted recent U.S. efforts to promote political
reform. America designated Pakistan a major non-NATO
ally in 2004, despite allegations that it has not done
enough to capture bin Laden. Saudi Arabia has helped
crack down on financial support flowing to terrorist
groups, but Saudi leaders have been slow to move
against radical elements within their own population.
Is the United States doing a poor job of choosing its
friends? Maybe. Then again, it may just be keeping its
friends close, and its enemies closer.

---------------------------------------------------

Sidebar: Grading the Government

A room full of foreign-policy experts can be a tough
crowd. So it's hardly surprising that the index
experts were highly critical of how the various
branches of the U.S. government are fighting the war
on terror. Only the National Security Agency received
an above-average score of 5.2, on a 0 to 10 scale,
where 0 represents the worst possible job of guarding
the United States. Every other agency received
below-average marks.

Experts gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
the worst grade. Its average score was just 2.9. In
fact, 36 percent of the experts indicated that the
newly created DHS has had a negative impact on
America's national security, and nearly 1 in 5 thought
the department's funding should be slashed. The U.S.
State Department received relatively high marks.
Surprisingly, this opinion was not limited to the
liberal internationalist wing of foreign-policy
elites. Even conservative experts, who have sometimes
taken a dimmer view of the State Department's
diplomatic efforts, believed that the department's
budget is a good investment and that it should be
moderately or substantially increased. Overall, 87
percent of the index's experts believe that Foggy
Bottom requires more funding, including 72 percent of
conservatives.

The index's experts also have a strong opinion of how
that money should be spent. Nearly 80 percent agree
that a widespread rejection of extremist ideologies
around the globe is critical to "winning" the war on
terror. Yet the experts simultaneously rated America's
public diplomacy efforts the lowest of any policy
initiative, with a median score of just 1.8. Clearly,
few believe that the United States is doing its best
to win friends and influence people.

------------------------------------------------

Sidebar: The Next Attack

Americans are consistently told that the next
terrorist attack on U.S. soil is a question of when,
not if. The index's results overwhelmingly agree that
the next attack is just a matter of time.

Eighty-four percent of the experts said they believe a
terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, is
likely or certain to happen in the next five years.
More than a quarter said a 9/11-scale attack is
certain to occur in America within the next decade.
Asked about the likelihood of a smaller strike akin to
the July 2005 London bombings, 91 percent agreed that
such an attack is likely or certain by 2016; more than
half said that such an attack could happen this year.

But how will the terrorists strike? Roughly two thirds
of the experts said that some part of America's
infrastructure—a port, train station, or major
landmark—will be targeted. That is no surprise, given
that terrorists have repeatedly struck these locales
in the past. But it may be more alarming that almost
the same percentage predict that the next attack will
come in the form of a suicide bombing. These results,
says index participant Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism
expert at the Rand Corp., "reflect a recognition of
how easy terrorism has become." Such attacks, he says,
"are cheap, unpredictable, and difficult to prevent.
All that is required is the will to kill and the will
to die, neither of which seems in short supply today."

Americans have never feared a suicide bombing the way
the people of Amman or Jerusalem have. But there may
be reason to think that will soon change. A recent
study by Rand found that 81 percent of all suicide
attacks in the past 30 or so years have occurred since
Sept. 11, 2001, and the primary motivation for each of
these attacks was a military intervention or
occupation such as the ongoing operations in Iraq. The
odds that America can continue to elude the world's
most popular form of terrorism may be fading fast.

-------------------------------------------

To download the complete survey, go to:
http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/resources.html

------------------------------------------
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------