Skip to content
News
Link copied to clipboard

Byko: U.S. needs a new kind of arsenal

It's here again, the date that brings grief, anguish and even fear to Americans, I hear. If "fear" means panic, I am not among them. If it means readiness and willingness to fight, I am.

Sunday is the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the worst attack on American soil, in which some 3,000 Americans died, while at their jobs, minding their own business.

They were killed by the Islamic terrorists of al-Qaeda, motivated by what they believe to be legitimate grievances -- such as U.S. policy in the Mideast and elsewhere -- but mostly by a false narrative that the U.S. is engaged in a "war with Islam." Their goal is a caliphate to subjugate the West.

The attack drew us into war, our longest ever, and it is nowhere near finished. We have unpalatable choices, but washing our hands of it must not be one of them.

This war will last through our lifetime, perhaps our children's lifetime and maybe even our grandchildren's. It is not going to go away.

Unlike previous wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam, we are fighting not a state, but an idea, an ideology.

Some believe you cannot defeat an ideology -- radical Islam -- through arms alone. They are right, but it cannot be defeated without arms.

Are we winning?

The answer is ambiguous, yes and no, depending on which piece of the puzzle you are looking at. ISIS set up a caliphate, which means we were losing. But the caliphate gave us targets to kill, which means we are winning.

Al-Qaeda provided the will and means for 9/11, and the U.S. eliminated its head, Osama bin Laden. Its new leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri released a video message saying 9/11 should be celebrated by targeting the U.S. and its allies, and called on African-Americans to attack America. He is barking up the wrong tree.

So al-Qaeda still exists, but the focus has shifted to ISIS, an even more toxic version of radical Islam, one with the ability -- through the internet -- to inspire attacks within distant countries. It also sends foreign fighters home to raise hell in their respective countries. Europe is more vulnerable than the U.S., but we need to be vigilant, too.

Syria is a mess, Iraq is a mess, Libya is a mess and Afghanistan isn't much better, but will be worse if we leave.

A long, dispassionate analysis was written by Brian Michael Jenkins of the nonpartisan RAND Corp. 

The essay is highly detailed, it lists plusses and minuses, but suggests the war will be a long one because our enemy has the ability to adapt and change and relocate. Pulling them out by the roots will not be easy. Attack the cancer in one place and cells migrate elsewhere.

But cancer can be beaten and so can radical Islam, no matter what name it takes.

While we lack top-rate intelligence, we have enough to be able to drone the leaders. We have the ability to defeat them on the ground should they stand and fight. They know this, which is why they will rarely engage our military head-on.

Donald Trump's Big Idea to "bomb the s--- out of them" works only when they congregate. He doesn't seem to have a clue otherwise.

Hillary Clinton's idea is to let our Arab allies do the fighting. That's wonderful if they are willing and most aren't or can't. Her vow not to send ground troops under any circumstances is a tactical mistake, as was Presidents Bush and Obama time-stamping a date of departure.

We should depart only when we win -- and maybe not even then.

We may have to stay in Afghanistan (and Iraq) a very long time to keep the insurgents from returning.

Too much, too long? We have forces stabilizing Europe and Japan since the end of World War II and  forces in Korea since the end of that conflict.

It is costly in monetary terms, but the cost of departure would be worse.

All of the above is about the arms. We can keep our boot on their neck militarily, but what about their ideology?

When we beat them on the ground, that shatters the magnet that attracts the jihadis, but they don't have to leave home to kill, as we have seen from Fort Hood to San Bernardino. The Islamists who condemn modernity are happy to stimulate mass murder over the internet.

They are excellent makers of video propaganda and, by and large, we have let them get away with it.

Cyber-attacking the roots of the propaganda should be an ongoing enterprise, but I'd suggest something more.

In previous wars, America's "arsenal" was its ability to manufacture weapons.

In this war, we need an arsenal to manufacture ideas.

Those ideas must be propelled by images, videos, with two goals.

The first, and most important, is to downgrade radical Islamist theology.

This can be done by providing a platform for Western Muslims to preach that ISIS subverts "true Islam." They can talk religion. Another part would be societal, explaining how, in the West, Muslims are free to worship, whether Shia or Sunni, and Muslim rights are protected. They can explain there are no 72 virgins waiting for jihadis.

The second thrust would illustrate how ISIS has killed more Muslims than has the West. Mosques have been blown apart by ISIS, Muslims have been decapitated along with Christians.

I envision films from the field of battle showing ISIS fighters retreating, mangled bodies in the sand.

If this sounds like propaganda, there is good propaganda and bad propaganda, and propaganda is an important element of war. Creating a belief that you are on the wrong side and you are losing is demoralizing.

We currently are surrendering the field to their bad propaganda.

In Hollywood we have the greatest arsenal for creating ideas and images.

I'd like our next president to call on Hollywood to join the fight in this war, as it has in past wars.

Once the content is created, the president should call upon our great high-tech geniuses to make sure it gets posted in the right places.

This can't be done for this 9/11 remembrance, but maybe it can be launched before the next.