Home > Library > Stable Times > Volume 8, Issue 4  

Former National Security Advisor Sees Hope, Struggle in War Against Terror

While the U.S. has had some success in the war against terror-eliminating many members of Al Qaeda and bringing down the Taliban in Afghanistan, which probably dents their ability to stage coordinated attacks such as those that devastated the country on September 11, 2001-the battle is far from over. "If we've broken the beehive, we haven't killed the bees," warns Samuel Berger, former national security advisor to President Bill Clinton.

As a keynote speaker at the SVIA Forum in Washington, DC on October 12-14, Berger described a world in which the U.S. still has the ability to be part of the solution to the terror problem, but only if we proceed "pragmatically, keep our guard up, and our hands outstretched to the world." More specifically, he said, the U.S. must stay on the offensive (get the terrorists before they get us), strengthen its defenses (despite strides in securing air travel, we've made little progress on the chemical plant, cargo, cyber security and non-air transportation fronts), and fight not just a war of weapons, but a war of ideas. "This war's front line is not Iraq, but wherever we are," Berger said. "So it is essential for the world to understand who we are-particularly when we are using the hard edge of our power."

Berger called the situation in Iraq "bad and not improving," leaving the U.S. with three options: withdrawal, a full-scale assault on the insurgents who have been terrorizing US and Iraqi forces, or a strategy of containment. While withdrawal holds appeal for many Americans, Berger warned, it is also a dangerous idea. Although he didn't spell it out, many foreign policy experts have warned that a U.S. withdrawal could allow Iraq to slide into a full-scale civil war, threaten to throw the entire region into chaos, and call American resolve into question. While there have been hints that the U.S. and Iraq may be considering a full-scale assault on the insurgents before year end, Berger discounted the possibility that it could work. "Brute force hasn't succeeded for the Russians in Chechnya or for the Israelis in Palestine," he observed. "You need a political solution."

That leaves containment, which Berger said would require building an effective Iraqi security force, launching a stronger dialogue with Iraq's moderate Shiites as well as with neighboring Iran and Syria, significantly accelerating the distribution of the $18 billion in reconstruction aid targeted for Iraq, and creating sufficient security to permit elections in Iraq. "This will not be easy," Berger warned, "because we've dug ourselves a pretty deep hole."

Other trouble spots throughout the world cannot be ignored while working toward a resolution of the problems in Iraq, Berger continued, observing that the entire Middle East is being divided by modernists and traditionalists. He said the U.S. can expect to assist in resolving their differences only to the extent that it aligns itself with the internal dynamics in those countries rather than forcing a U.S. view on them. Unemployment in Arab states is among the highest in the world, he noted, which is helping to fuel the volatile environment in the Middle East.

He offered the following assessment of U.S. challenges and opportunities in other parts of the world:

North Korea. Berger termed North Korea "one of the most dangerous places in the world today," saying it has developed the capacity to produce six to eight nuclear weapons within six months "and soon up to 20 per year if they wish." He said North Korea has shown that it is willing to sell dangerous weapons, and observed that the world now has terrorists willing to buy from them. "We're seeing the development of the world's first nuclear weapon Wal-Mart," he said, and argued that the U.S. "cannot kick this problem down the road."

As with Iraq, Berger said the U.S. has three options for dealing with North Korea. One is to accept that country's role as a "nuclear Wal-Mart" and do nothing. The other is to go to war, recognizing, he said, that one million Koreans could die in the process. Finally, there is negotiation. While calling none of them "good options," Berger said he would prefer negotiation. He said the U.S. should tell North Korea that if it gives up its nuclear program in a verifiable way, it can rejoin the world. "Only then will we know their intent and be able to rally the world against them."

China. Berger painted China as a country of opportunity, thanks to its rapidly growing economy, but also one of challenges, thanks to its weak environmental policies, its political tensions and its corruption. "Government can manage any one of those issues, but the challenge is to do all of them," he said. He called Taiwan "the only fly in our relationship with China," and said it must stop pushing for independence from China. Meanwhile, he said, it is essential for the U.S. to broaden the scope of its engagement with China to include not just monetary policy and human rights but also security, health care and other important issues.

Russia. Russia is also a challenging world partner, Berger said. But he observed that despite its economic growth and greater openness to outside investors, the country is plagued by ethnic tensions, uneven sharing of its new prosperity, and a poor infrastructure. It is, he said, the only industrial country where male longevity is declining because of a poor health care system. Despite the problems facing Russia, Berger said he does not see a threat to President Putin's leadership there, even though "all we hear about him are the bad things." He conceded that Putin is "no little 'd' democrat," but said Putin still needs the industrial world, and, economically at least, is likely to stay on the reform course down which Russia has been headed. Berger also said Russia must develop a political rather than military solution to the conflict in Chechnya.

Europe. In Europe, Berger said simply that the recent expansion of the European Union to include many formerly East Bloc countries ultimately will present the U.S. with "a more formidable ally or adversary, depending on how well we manage our relationship" with those countries.

Read Next: Brookings Fellow Argues for Fewer Hurdles for Lower-Income Savers