IF A TERRORIST GROUP CAUSED THE DEATHS of the TWA Flight 800 passengers, politicians and pundits will inevitably redouble pious calls for heightening security at airports. Some may even call for a limited military strike against a particular group or its sponsor. Such measures, while consistent with past U.S. steps against terrorism, are too weak and will not succeed in deterring future attacks. Indeed, they may even invite more attacks.
We need a qualitatively different approach in how we perceive the terrorist threat and what we do about it. The states that sponsor terror against the United States consider it a form of war, and since they cannot confront the United States directly because of our military strength, they rely on this asymmetric and indirect technique. Their undeclared war against the United States may become deadlier, with future attacks including biological and nuclear weapons, even strikes against America’s information infrastructure.
So far, we have not been serious in confronting terrorism and its state sponsors. The United States has been too ad hoc and too legalistic. It is time to take a more aggressive approach.
If we discover that a state-sponsored terrorist group destroyed TWA 800, we must take immediate and forceful military action against the sponsor. These attacks should not be a tit-for-tat response to the loss of U.S. lives. Rather, we should project a disproportionate response — a response that strikes at the foundations of the sponsor regime by targeting its security forces, its economic infrastructure, its communications, and other sources of support. This campaign by missiles and attack aircraft should continue until the state renounces terrorism and cooperates with U.S. officials in bringing the guilty terrorist group to justice.
Such a strong short-term response will strengthen deterrence of other state- sponsored terror against the United States. But it is not enough. For the long term we need a policy consisting of six steps:
First, we must get to know the enemy. U.S. intelligence must be focused on infiltrating terrorist groups and sponsoring states. This is a difficult task, but just as obviously we should be doing it better.
Second, we must build up our defenses against the threats posed by terrorists today and against the threats they may pose tomorrow. Materials for making weapons of mass destruction are widely available, but our ability to track the purchasers and suppliers of such material is limited. We should undertake a major research effort aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world. We also need to improve our ability to trace the source for high explosives. And the government must secure our information infrastructure — computers and phones and the like. Such defense is particularly necessary to protect the United States against groups and individuals operating without a state sponsor, which in general makes them harder to deter and control.
Third, we must confront states that sponsor, promote, or facilitate terrorism against the United States, and do so proactively. Often, terrorist groups operate at the behest of a particular government, while at other times states assist such groups by providing them with passports, technology, and a haven. The governments that have sponsored or facilitated terror against the United States are few — Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria — and they are relatively weak. Iran’s gross domestic product is roughly one fifth the size of the U.S. defense budget; the other three economies are even more pathetic. These nations are no geopolitical threat in and of themselves, and we need not tread lightly in our effort to domesticate and defang them. And if they refuse to be domesticated — a likely scenario — we must not shy away from options that can facilitate a change in regime. All these governments are unstable, and the citizens of these countries want better economic and political conditions. We should help them achieve those objectives.
Fourth, sponsors of terrorism deserve the full brunt of U.S. power, should efforts to deter them fail. Our response should be disproportionate and strike at institutions of state power — their military establishment and their security installations. In short, we punish to deter, which may require taking two eyes for a tooth to demonstrate U.S. resolve.
Fifth, the United States should shrink the zones of chaos that foster terrorism. Afghanistan, for example, appears to have become a hub where terrorists arm, train, and plan future attacks. The United States, however, abandoned Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War. Such neglect has come back to haunt us, as anti-U.S. groups operate with impunity there. It is time to reengage in Afghanistan and work toward a settlement that will bring stability.
Sixth, we must lead our allies in the fight against terrorism while retaining an independent capability to stop it on our own. In addition to strengthening the impact of economic punishment, our allies can provide military support and intelligence on terrorism. They can also press Russia and China to stop transferring nuclear, biological, and chemical technology that could be used by terrorists. After all, they too have been victims of terrorism. But when they will not help, the United States will have to act alone. American hesitation due to fear of offending our allies may cost more American lives later. If our allies dither on whether to punish Iran, we cannot then stand still.
All this will require a major and sustained effort. We have the power to succeed, but until now we have lacked the will.
Zalmay Khalilzad was the assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning in the Bush administration.
