The cold war was given form by two forces: one political, one technological. Politically, the defining feature was the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Technologically, it was the rise of nuclear weapons. Together the two defined the age we lived in for half a century. The former explained the long political and ideological struggle between the West and Soviet communism; the latter explained why it never turned violent. Thus no world war, but a cold war.
The day-to-day events of that struggle were a logical result of these broader factors. Because using nuclear weapons was unthinkable, competition took the form of shifts in the correlation of nuclear forces. The arms race became a way to measure who was winning. And since the central battlefield was quiet, both sides helped allies in their local struggles–in other words, proxy wars. Any conflict, no matter how remote (Angola, Nicaragua), was tied back to the central contest between America and the Soviet Union.
What are the realities shaping international life today? On the technological front, September 11th marked our entry into a world of mass terror. Of course terrorism has existed forever, but 9/11 symbolized a new reality: the democratization of violence on a large scale. “Even a few decades ago, if you wanted to kill 3,000 people, you would need to have control of a state,” explains Harvard’s Stephen Walt. “Today a small group of people can do it. That’s a huge difference with huge implications.” This means violence is much more likely than it was during the cold war, when deterrence ensured that adversaries could refuse to surrender and yet stay at peace. How do you deter someone whose address you do not know?
September 11th also highlighted a political reality: the struggle between the West and radical Islam. Over the past few decades it has become clear that this one significant movement stands in violent opposition to the modern world. It has waged a civil war within Islam, against the mainstream adherents of the faith. But it has also taken the battle to the masters of modernity, the West, and in particular the United States.
In a previous age, such a movement would have been an irritant. But with new technologies of destruction, it can wage a world war. The religious orientation of the Islamists also breaks down deterrence. How do you deter someone who is willing, indeed eager, to die?
The Bush administration has drawn conclusions about this new world. You have to go on the offensive. Prevention is the only path to security. The concept of preventive action makes a good deal of sense. In today’s world you cannot wait until armies are massed across your border, because there will be no armies and the enemy will not wait to be seen. When he strikes it is too late to strike back. (By misapplying the doctrine to Iraq, the administration has muddied a useful strategic concept.)
But the new realities also suggest other paths to security. For one thing, global cooperation is now much easier. Most countries are united in wanting to hunt down terrorists. None has any interest in empowering Al Qaeda. That is why even Libya and Syria have given some help to the United States in its struggle against Osama bin Laden. For hardheaded reasons of self-interest, most countries would join together in a global antiterrorism coalition–if the United States would try to forge one.
You cannot deter Islamic fundamentalists, but you can weaken them. Guerrillas move through the population the way fish swim in the sea, explained Mao Zedong. The surest way to defeat the radicals is to turn the local population against them. Central to the war on terror, then, is a political strategy that appeals to the Muslim mainstream.
Those in the front lines understand this. Gen. David Petraeus, who runs most of northern Iraq, hangs a sign in his headquarters. we are in a race to win over the people, it reads. what have you and your element done today to contribute to victory? It is a question that he might ask of his superiors in Washington.
